Talk:Billy Mitchell (gamer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pure Pwnage

was recently shown on the TV Show Pure Pwnage episode 7 "Losing to a n00b" which aired on Showcase april 23rd 2010

Showcase Video

South Park

"The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters documentary" was parodied in episode 1109 "More Crap". Randy breaks Bono's record for biggest crap in the world. Bono replies by sending a video tape showing that he has retaken his title, which is accepted without further proof. Randy retaliates by taking a bigger one in front of a live audience that seals his record.

Comedy Central

Edit Request: typo correction.

Billy L. Mitchell, (born July 16, 1965) is an ELETRONIC [sic] sports player.

Can someone with edit access please fix this?

The X-Show

The article stated: On February 2, 2000, Billy Mitchell appeared on the "X-Show," commonly called the "MAN Show." But "The X Show" IMDb and "The Man Show" IMDb were two separate programs. That would be like saying that someone "appeared on MAD TV, commonly called Saturday Night Live." --Metropolitan90 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

what is a perfect game?

need some clarification. is it you play through all the levels of pacman without losing a life? or eating the powerpellets, and snarfing every single ghost without missing one. or eating every fruit that comes by, without missing one. man, i didn't even know pacman had an end. i thought it just looped forever until you died.68.102.37.191 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

a perfect play is when you achieve the highest score possible. In Pacman that occurs by perfecting every level (getting all fruit and eating all ghosts when possible) up to level 256, when the game screws itself up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.247.1 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Mitchell using intuitive movement in Pacman?

Removing the bit about Mitchell not using patterns, the article it linked to clearly indicates he does. 160.5.247.1 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DK Jr "Perfect"

A score of 957,300 on Donkey Kong Jr is not "perfect," as the article indicates. One player has even scored over one million points: http://marp.retrogames.com/r/dkongjr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.178.38 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was a mistake. Also, we need a more unified way of showing high scores in profiles such as this. +sj + 07:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Interview From 1up.com

Here is the link to the interview where he addresses his portrayal in the Movie "king of Kong"

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165895

I do not know if any of the information could be used here....

70.55.238.80 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Scoring Controversy

Should this article not make reference to the questionable ethics and many statements made in the documentary that directly contradict his own actions?

Hrhadam (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Topps Allen/Ginter card

{{editsemiprotected}}http://www.topps.com/product/ProductChecklist.aspx?sportsid=0&Product_Id=1281

This confirms Mitchell on the Topps A/G set WesL57 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)WesL57

http://www.topps.com/product/CardDetail.aspx?sportsid=0&Product_Id=1281&card_id=409698 is a better link. But why are you saying this? Belasted (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

mullet / american flag ties

The upcoming movie The King of Kong (which is utterly fantastic - go see it!!!) does feature Billy Mitchell wearing his hair long and with his trademark american flag ties. Whether this article can say that he's known for his mullet is a questionable; in the movie, Billy does speak about why he wears patriotic clothing (such as ties). When the movie comes out, we should be able to transcribe that particular set of comments about the tie to remove the "fact" tag in that portion of the article. SpikeJones 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's not a mullet, then I am Donkey Kong's uncle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.53.187.49 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

^ No kidding! btw: It's whack interesting to see a Wikipedia entry which explains how Billy Mitchell's mullet isn't actually a mullet, but instead, it's just long hair. Err...uh...okay? JJPasadena (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in the mullet section below. Pisomojado (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

King of Kong

The King of Kong article contradicts some of the information listed here. There is some criticism of the movie in that it presents things skewed negatively towards Mitchell and does not include all the facts. for one thing, it makes Mitchell seem like he never played against Wiebe, when in actuality, they met several times, were of friendly terms and played several times before 2007. --65.31.110.13 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you look under the Disputed Facts section of the King of Kong article? Belasted (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Mitchell, not "King of Kong". Any details of the movie and accompanying arguments about MItchell's depiction in it belong over on the "King of Kong" page. This is consistent with what has been done with the Wiebe page. I therefore cut out the section, leaving only a sentence or so in the biography section. I also found out that he was in another documentary in the same year, and made mention of it as well.Pisomojado (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the "he's an ass" comment

From the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article:

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

The remark that someone (who?) says he's an "ass" adds nothing to the article. It makes Wikipedia an arena for mudslinging between third parties. --causa sui ^talk 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think it would be fair to show that he has been portrayed in a negative sense; however, I do think we should keep things as you left them.J.D. Lowe 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical about whether it's encyclopedic to talk about his "negative portrayal", but we can discuss edits as they come up. His status as a villain in The King of Kong should probably be left in that article. --causa sui ^talk 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be referred to as "Antagonist" rather than "villain," as villain has strictly negative connotations while "antagonist" is more neutral. Liontamarin 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Antagonist even has negative connotations, you might want to describe him as a "competitor" of Wiebe. Also, the King of Kong section seemed to have some parts that inadvertently made him out to be a bad guy and an ass (which in respect the film did make him seem like one). I believe I fixed them, but someone else may want to check it over once more. Thyker 0:34, 7 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.95.248 (talk)

HE IS TOTALLY AN ASS. and a cheater.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tails04 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Long hair or Mullet.

So does he have long hair or a mullet? I am more likely to go with long hair since he does not have short hair on the top. Also I think it is a little too well kept to be called a mullet. I don't want to split hair.. styles --8bitJake (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All the press on him calls it a mullet. It sure looks like a mullet to me. I'm going with that.Pisomojado (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A mullet is long in back and short on top. Billy's hair on top flows down the side. It is not a mullet by any stretch of the imagination, whether "all the press calls it a mullet," or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.56.108 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT a "mullet" haircut. It is uniformly long; a "mullet" is short on the top and/or sides and long in the back. Just because some clown in the "press" incorrectly identifies it as a mullet does not make it true. C'mon Wikipedia editors...get a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.252.117 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When I look at Mitchell's picture, I see what I think of as a mullet. However, I don't know Mitchell. I've never met him, never seen him, and never seen the documentary he's in. To cut through it, I base my edits of his wikipedia entry on verifiable sources and three of the sources on Mitchell describe his haircut as a mullet. That's it. If you have a source which contradicts this, by all means point it out, and then we will have grounds for a discussion.Pisomojado (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it easy enough to find pictures of him and compare that with the definition of mullet? Or are we letting the media define it whether it is right or wrong? Because I agree, that is definitely not a mullet. It is simply long hair. 24.19.235.234 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the fact that its not a mullet. Everyone knows that the media fucks stuff up all the time so that should not be a factor. So the lame fact needs to be removed.

The only reason I ever created a wikipedia account is to argue that Billy's hair is not a mullet, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredre007 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What we should have, is another paragraph noting the man sports what is largely perceived as a mullet. Interestingly, if you people ever bother to see some of Billy Mitchell's other documentary pieces freely available on Youtube. You can see he CLEARLY wears a mullet. Point is, the man has a hair cut left over from the 1980s and it IS A MULLET! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.123 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros

I came across a comment on Youtube attributing the fastest Super Mario Bros time to Billy Mitchell. Can someone please look into this and verify it? Boxieblue (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)BoxieBlue

Edit request from Indros, 22 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I just finished watching the movie. This sentence, "Twin Galaxies later made an official apology for his mistreatment, and also told him that in future any tapes submitted by him would be welcome." is in reference to Steve Wiebe, not Billy Mitchell.

This sentence should be removed because it is wrong, there is no replacement.

1:18:00 to 1:19:00.

Indros (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 16:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.14.216.253, 29 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The referred URL (#7) refers to an interview with documentary director Seth Gordon, but the link only goes as far as the root of its host site.

The interview referred to is potentially offline. I suggest this interview: "http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17698" which may be an accurate link but less relevant to support the original statement. It's a judgement call.

86.14.216.253 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I checked out the ugo article and a pop-up ad presented itself there, so instead I found a "The Filmlot" interview of Seth Gordon with his opinion of Mitchell. I was unable to find a quote that exactly supported the 'much worse' claim, so instead changed it to reflect Gordon's opinion of Mitchell as being a puppet-master, etc. Hope that's alright. Shearonink (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The last sentence of the King of Kong section is now inaccurate--suggest changing to "though that score was surpassed on February 26, 2010 by Hank Chien." This is consistent with the section head, as this fact was mentioned in a postscript. This wording will also keep the content correct now and if future records are set. Any discussion of Mitchell as current DK record holder, or who any future record holders may be, should be in a different section as they're outside the scope of the movie.

Dear Jkkbishop - Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources so it appears your request cannot be completed as it now stands. If an appropriate reference can be supplied, then please use another {{editsemiprotected}}.
Also, remember to sign your posts on Talk-pages with 4 tildes (these things---> ~).
Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done

The King of Kong entry

This entry is for Bill Mitchell, not the film "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters." It should not be included in detail other than to state that he appeared in the film. In addition, there should then also be mention that he starred in "Chasing Ghosts," a video game documentary.

Almost all of the information in this section is based only on the movie and not in fact, as Seth Gordon himself acknowledged that the film was edited to create a story of their choosing, (which ultimately became a smear campaign against TwinGalaxies and Bill Mitchell.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.59.110 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dontshootiamyourconscience, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} i noticed that somebody changed the scores a couple of days ago and i wanted to change them back

Dontshootiamyourconscience (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Why do you want to change them back? The edit was accopmpanied by a reliable source. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KingOfKong-Screenshot2.png

The image Image:KingOfKong-Screenshot2.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The only wikipedia appropriate picture on flickr is this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/magnusdigity/2654032728/ however it features 2 others and may not be appropriate as a bio picture. IEchuu (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New high score!?? 7/31/2010 entry on twingalixies

http://twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3852&vi=22

7/31/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.172.88 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Who did this and why?

"Removing the bit about Mitchell not using patterns, the article it linked to clearly indicates he does. 160.5.247.1 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)"

Bill absolutely did not use patterns to play Pac-Man. He specifically did it this way. Even if I did not know the story from ten years ago that he did not play with patterns, there are other factors which would point out that he didn't. The time it took him to play is indicative of this. I am a person who has a verified perfect Pac-Man game. I do not have very quick patterns and finished the game over an hour and a half faster taking at least ten minutes worth of breaks. No patterned player ever took anywhere close to five hours to play and Bill took almost six.

Douglas Loyd Perfect Pac-Man 3,333,360 - 5/16/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.59.110 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source for your statement regarding Mitchell's non-use of patterns, please provide it. Otherwise, your original research (opinion) is not sufficient to support the statement. MindfulJen (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Who did this and why, part 2

"If you have a source for your statement regarding Mitchell's non-use of patterns, please provide it. Otherwise, your original research (opinion) is not sufficient to support the statement. MindfulJen (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)"

I do not present opinions. Facts are facts whether or not I state them. While we are at it, can we see the research that was done to remove correct information?

http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001057.html

"[Billy Mitchell:] I understand the behavior of the ghosts and am able to manipulate the ghosts into any corner of the board I choose. This allows me to clear the screen with no patterns. This was a more difficult method for the initial 18 screens. I chose to do it this way because I wanted to demonstrate the depths of my abilities. I wanted to raise the bar higher - to a level that no one else could match."

Therefore, there was no reason to eliminate the passage about Bill playing the game patternless. Whoever eliminated the passage does not know the difference between patterned play and unpatterned play. Bill played without patterns, as noted above, and it is not horribly difficult to do so.

12.106.59.110 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Douglas Loyd, another perfect Pac-Man player

Edit request from Akwit, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please edit: "Recaptured the world records for both Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. on the weekend of July 24, 2010 with scores of 1,062,800 and 1,270,900 respectively.[12]" to say Steve Wiebe is the current Donkey Kong World Record holder with a score of 1,064,500 points. See press release here: http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=2264

Akwit (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This article is about Billy Mitchell; the information you requested should be added to Stebe Wiebe's article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and have made an edit that reflects that Mitchell no longer holds those records (with reference to the Twin Galaxies press release). To leave it as it was would be misleading and implies that Mitchell still holds the records. Also clarified the Pac Man record. He still holds that but shares it with 5 others.--RadioFan (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

score

gee... how're his scores verified? Xah Lee 06:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

He was watched the whole time by Walter Day, Twin Galaxies referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.177.88 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

His scores are based upon biased verification and in some instances might have been faked 08:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaginsh (talk • contribs)

His score haven't appeared yet on twingalaxies.com so we should either add something to this effect on the site or remove it entirely, no? Lightx101 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it has been verified as of June 26, 2007 according to Twin Galaxies. J.D. Lowe (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Walter Day is person who "verified" Mitchell's score, even though video evidence showed that the score was falsified. He has no credibility, and thus is not a reliable source for the score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.87.148 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Any accusations of falsification may be included in the article if they are accompanied by reliable sources. Conjecture wont cut it. For good or bad, Twin Galaxies credibility is backed up by their association with the Guinness Book of World Records for now.--RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Wieb

Added sentence stating Steve Wiebe taking back the title on 8/20.

http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=2264 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamajamma (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You have the date wrong. It should be 9/20, by your own link. 98.222.201.114 (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. The date should read 9/20, as per provided reference. An authorized user must edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.112.245 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - Dec 3, 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the notable scores section there is 3 distinct use of date formats.

MM/DD/YYYY DD/MM/YYYY and Month DD, YYYY

Please change:

02/14/2010 -> February 14, 2010 20/09/2010 -> September 20, 2010

Please standardize this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.121.66 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks! I found a few others in the rest of the article too; I think that's all, but if I missed something feel free to send me a message on my talk page or make a new edit request.

Huh?

How do we know that some kid or dude somewhere in the Third World or Russia or wherever hasn't broken his records and just doesn't report it? I find it dumb for Twin Galaxies and such to give praise to somebody like this, that's all. Coffee5binky (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a process of verification and validation that basically any organization which bestows awards and titles utilizes, ie, Guinness. Why should Twin Galaxies be an exception? Besides, this belongs on the Twin Galaxies discussion page, not the Mitchell page. Machine Man (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, nobody gives a crap about those countries. Look at my tie!!!! Go U.S.A.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woooooooooo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.209.130.1 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rickey's Restaurant

No citation or evidence exists confirming that Billy Mitchell is involved in an ownership capacity with the "Rickey's Restaurant & Lounge" chain. County property appraiser office documents show it not to be in his name (click here). Further, no business tax license under his name can be found with the Broward County Business Tax Database. Phone call to the establishment itself only confirms Mr. Mitchell's involvement in the "hot sauce" brand. Unless documentation can be found supporting these claims, it should not be included since contradictory county information seems to exist and employees of the establishment do not indicate him as the owner. 70.149.18.246 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I went to the Broward county tax site you linked and typed in "Rickey's restaurant".

I got this:

Acct Num: 20899

Business: RICKEYS RESTAURANT & LOUNGE 220 NW 180 AVE HOLLYWOOD, FL 33029

Owner(s): WILLIAM J MITCHELL 220 NW 180 AVE PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33029

Mailing: WILLIAM J MITCHELL 220 NW 180 AVE PEMBROKE PINES, FL 3302

Account Status: Active

So, I'm reverting your changes. Thank you for your participation, though! Pisomojado (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the page his name is Billy(William?) L. Mitchell, but the Broward County Business Tax Database shows the restaurant owned by William J. Mitchell. Different names normally imply they are different people and that shows he isn't the owner of the business, but likely his father is, right? Sean118 (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Billy" is short for William, retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.209.130.1 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah? Is L. short for J.? 208.38.59.161 (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dmackow, 28 June 2011

New updated information is available. After the line, "On September 20, 2010, Steve Wiebe once again took the title with a score of 1,064,500.[10]", the new edit should read: On February 27, 2011, Hank Chien regained the title with a score of 1,090,400.

Source: http://www.twingalaxies.com/ Select scoreboard, then search arcade, Donkey Kong Dmackow (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As this is not a page about either Steve Wiebe or Hank Chien and as far as i know Billy Mitchell didn't re-gain it in-between them. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regular Show

He was parodied in episode "High Score" of the regular show. 174.62.207.65 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.77.134.184, 26 August 2011

This Free Image (File:Billy Mitchell on December 19, 2007.jpg) of Mitchell has been added to Commons. Please put it in the right of the Article so it can illustrate the subject. Thank You.

74.77.134.184 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: clarification

{{editsemiprotected}} "He has been claimed by some as the "greatest arcade-video-game player of all time".[2][3]" The use of "by some" is vague. Since you have referenced here "[2][3]", either remove "by some" or add in the names of the individuals who make this claim. --74.179.120.13 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is hardly about Bill Mitchell.

I'm am very curious as to why the section on this page marked "video game career" contains virtually no elements of his video game career. It merely contains a paragraph about the movie "King of Kong," most of which is completely fabricated "information." There is a blurb about briefly regaining the DK and DKJr. titles, but that is a very small piece of his video game career. There is no longer any information about the National Video Game Championships, Twin Galaxies national video game tour, the original DK record which stood for twenty years, the perfect Pac-Man game...nothing. I know some of these things used to be included in this article, because I have two different postings advising to correct said information. For the most part, this page now seems to exist almost solely as a smear campaign grounded in a work of fiction.

12.106.59.110 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Douglas Loyd, another perfect Pac-Man player

Yep... good ol' Wikipedia! How things have changed, but haven't changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.31.211 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (1/4/2012): name under photo has typo

Billy's last name is "Mitchell" but is spelled "Mitchel" beneath the photo.

Done Drpickem (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

|- !Donkey Kong Jr. |1,270,900 |- !BurgerTime |7,881,050 |} Billy Fuckwad Mitchell, (born July 16, 1965) is an electronic sports player who is best known for recording high scores in classic video games from the Golden Age of Arcade Games. He has been claimed by some as the "greatest arcade-video-game player of all time" and by others as "a complete asshole". His achievements include the first perfect score in Pac-Man. He owns the "Rickey's World Famous Restaurant" chain, based in Hollywood, Florida. He uses the same brand to sell a line of hot sauces, "Rickey's World Famous Sauces".

24.206.89.228 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Locked.

How long has this been locked? (98.87.95.230 (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

electronic sports player

So Billy Mitchell is a video games player. Where does this "electronics sports player" come from? Sounds pretty pretentious, and nobody understands what it is supposed to mean (it means: video games player.) I strongly suggest that this is fixed (or I will fix it the next time I look at this article, if ever.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.220.75 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree, so I moved it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

eSports & electronic sports is a fairly large thing unsIP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_sports 77.103.132.143 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

The first line of the bio says his birthday is the 17th but the sidebar says it is 16th. Any source on which is correct?Jccalhoun (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

bio

Billy Mitchell grew up in Hollywood, Florida. He played on the Hollywood West Optimist Football team and graudated from Chaminade High School. He is the only boy of four Mitchell children. His father's name is William Mitchell, Sr., Senior Mitchell started the Ricky's Restaurants on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.218.73 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the details about his kids' academic careers really relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.138.5 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Billy Mitchell (video game player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127032818/http://gawker.com:80/judge-throws-out-former-donkey-kong-record-holders-laws-1744324598? to http://gawker.com/judge-throws-out-former-donkey-kong-record-holders-laws-1744324598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305170828/http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1465 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1465
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815191313/http://www.twingalaxies.com:80/index.aspx?c=27&id=2213 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=27&id=2213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923131650/http://www.twingalaxies.com:80/index.aspx?c=19&id=2264 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=2264
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726053417/http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3229&vi=3365 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3229&vi=3365
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091114020640/http://tg.twingalaxies.com:80/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3852&vi=22 to http://tg.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3852&vi=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815191313/http://www.twingalaxies.com:80/index.aspx?c=27&id=2213 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=27&id=2213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122233755/http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=305 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=305

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Billy Mitchell (video game player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gawker.com/judge-throws-out-former-donkey-kong-record-holders-laws-1744324598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128030644/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DONKEY_KONG_CHAMPION_LAWSUIT_NJOL-?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DONKEY_KONG_CHAMPION_LAWSUIT_NJOL-?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1465
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tg.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=22&pi=2&gi=3852&vi=22
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=27&id=2213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311171236/http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=18&id=1033 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=18&id=1033
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511210941/http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1622 to http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=1622

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

USER: 71.86.114.4

Whomever is behind the ip address 71.86.114.4 is really hell bent on modifying certain articles. If this continues I am going to suggest a block be put in place. AirplanePete (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Whomever you are is hell bent on modifying certain articles. My edit history is varied, yours seems intent on entering false information about very specific people and topics while removing information that puts Patterson in a good light. I believe Airplane Pete to be Datagod, using this alternate account to protect himself against what he knows to be actions that would cost him his more established account.47.190.47.120 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to reach a productive consensus

People have always been able to reach the kill screen stage of Pac-Man by using the dip switch settings / rack advance feature of the game board. Perhaps we can agree to make the following edit:

   * Together with friend Chris Ayra they were the ONE OF THE FIRST GROUPS reach the ultimate "split-screen" level 256 of Pac-Man in the summer of 1983.[1] Mitchell commented this in 2016 by claiming he had achieved "perfection".[26]

What do you think, fellow editor? Can we bury the hatchet and work together on this? Datagod (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

None of the gamers did a rack advance. You couldn't just walk into an arcade and do that. Each of them was witnessed playing without doing that.

• Do you have irrefutable proof of this? Were you a witness? Conjecture is not fact. Datagod (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal is still opinion based considering we are looking at 5 people who did it in 1982 and the fact there were likely many many more research has yet to uncover. Maybe "Together with friend Chris Ayra, they were among the earliest known players" would be close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades. At least an improvement over the blatantly false claim they were THE first, which they were not.

• Well, this is an improvement anyway. Until we agree upon a sentence, please stop simply deleting the sentence. Datagod (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember what he says in the King of Kong movie about people not getting credit they deserve and people getting credit they didn't earn. They did not earn the claim of first on this. 71.86.114.4 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• That movie contained a lot of fiction and clever editing. Highly entertaining story about people getting Kill Screens. I believe he was referring to people falsely claiming getting to the 22 level of Donkey Kong when the clearly don't have to skills to do so. Not relevent to the Pac-Man discussion, as it took place nearly 25 years prior. Datagod (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

How does this sound?

   * Together with friend Chris Ayra they were among the earliest known players reach the ultimate "split-screen" level 256 of Pac-Man in the summer of 1983.[1] Mitchell commented this in 2016 by claiming he had achieved "perfection".[26]

Datagod (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be a fair statement. You have to look at it like this; if someone put that Buzz Aldrin was the first man on the moon and it sat in Wikipedia for ages before it was caught, it wouldn't make it a valid thing to leave in there because it's easily proven untrue. Same in this case. Fair to say Mitchell and Arya were among the earliest known players because research is only turning up five or six others so far we can confirm doing it before them. A fair statement. 71.86.114.4 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am glad we came to a consensus on this. Datagod (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

- WHAT? This is still a matter of opinion. Proven multiple people did it first and there is likely a lot more, so why even have this as a note. Is the 16th person to come to America listed as one of the first too? I dont agree with this at all.47.190.47.120 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversy over first to reach a kill screen

There is controversy over who was first to reach a Kill screen. The long standing view has been that Billy Mitchell and Chris Ayra were the first to do this. This claim is backed up in the article.

 * Together with friend Chris Ayra were the first to reach the ultimate "split-screen" level 256 of Pac-Man in the summer of 1983.[1] Mitchell commented this in 2016 by claiming he had achieved "perfection".

Two anonymous accounts have been removing this entry without providing proper reasons why. Let us please discuss the new information here before making further edits to the article. Datagod (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This book published in April 1982 discusses the split screen in detail along with media affidavid: https://www.digitpress.com/library/books/book_vmg_pac-man.pdf

• This book is still in copyright. Posting a link to a digital copy of the book could be considered illegal. I suggest you find another source. Datagod (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This video clearly shows Ricky MOri reaching split screen in November 1982 on camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPN1GcLPG4s

• Youtube is not a valid source Datagod (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case given the date on the video, it is a source that backs up my point. You only choose to ignore it, just as you ignore the Birkner link. Wikipedia editors would certainly consider a published book with an affidavit and a clear publishing date as evidence to back up that Mitchell was not the first to this feat.47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of these took place before the summer of 1983. You only disagree with it because Mitchell is your personal friend. You have a conflict of interest here.

 * For an anonymous editor you sure claim to have a lot of personal knowledge of me and my thought processes.  It is well known that I am the official photographer and have attended dozens of top events, meeting almost every competitor.  You might have even seen a photo or two of me with these people.  Is that why you are jumping to conclusions?  A true conflict of interest is the current alleged owner of the USNVGT feeding you all these juicy tidbits of information while at the same time boasting publicly on facebook that he is not interested in wikipedia but does have time to accept emails from "a young historian" who is "merely interested in correcting falsehoods that were entered on wiki (sic)".  Datagod (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It is easy to see your public conversations on the internet, from your forum and social media posts to your interesting Reddit threads. It is easy to see you have a personal friendship and bias toward Mitchell. My request for fact checking with a noted expert that you dislike for some reason is not relevant to the point at hand.

• Irrelevent. My identity outside of this website is not up for discussion. Continuing to do so may result in a ban. Datagod (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The facts here is that the note claiming Mitchell and Ayra were the first to achieve the split screen is incorrect. You stated that the edits were made without proper reasons why, yet you ignore the links I put here showing the reasons why. The links clearly show two gamers - John Birkner and Ricky Mori - reaching the split screen in clearly dated 1982 dates. I could continue to provide more links showing more players doing this in 1982, but since you choose to ignore the ones I've already presented becuase they don't favor your friend I hestitate.

There is NO controversy here. There is more than enough hard evidence to show that Mitchell and Ayra were not even close to the first to reach the split screen. Please cease using Wikipedia as your platform to pad your friends accomplishments while ignoring hard evidence that shows the credit belongs to others. 47.190.47.120 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

These are just two of numerous media links that validate multiple people reached split screen in 1982. Continuing to add this false information into article doesn't change reality, nor do claims by Mitchell or your choice to believe anything he tells you in your conversations. 47.190.47.120 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Irrelevent. No such conversations have taken place. You are reaching strange conclusions. Datagod (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine. But you continue to ignore the provided links that prove without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell was not the first to reach the split screen. Given that you uploaded a photo of the two of you together on Wikipedia, I can certain cite a conflict of interest provided that you ignore the evidence against him while you continue to re-edit in the false claim. 47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

- The aforementioned John Birkner book showing he did it in Feb. 1982 - https://www.digitpress.com/library/books/book_vmg_pac-man.pdf

- Article on Eric Scwibs, who did it in May 1982 - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/115049517/

- Page 32 of June 1982 Electronic Games shows a player Kevin Fischer accomplished it - http://www.digitpress.com/library/magazines/electronic_games/electronic_games_jun82.pdf

- Video footage of Ricky Mori doing it in November 1982 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPN1GcLPG4s

Your semantics do not change the fact that here are four different media sources reporting four different people doing a split screen in 1982. The Schwibs score is even listed in your precious Twin Galaxies data base. Fischer's score was done at Funspot according to other reports, a sanctioned Twin Galaxies mecca for years.

You are clearly too close to Mitchell to be objective. Choosing to ignore MULTIPLE sources that prove a split screen was done well before Mitchell and Ayra reeks of conflict of interest and bias. Further removal of the proven fake credit on this page will be escalated until the issue is resolved. 71.86.114.4 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• our personal lives outside wikipedia have no bearing on truth. I have not added information, simply prevented the removal of long standing accepted and well documented facts Datagod (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It does when there are numerous photos online of you and I believe your wife with the person this page is about. A clear personal bias. Also, this was not a long standing accepted nor well documented fact. It is not a fact at all. A quick search engine search turns up conversation on the Twin galaxies and Classic Arcade gaming forums going back as far as 7 years where Birkner and others are talked about being first to a split screen. You certainly searched out such data, right?71.86.114.4 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So funny that we now knows that Billy is a cheater - and used friends to enter some of his scores and faked evidence. So what happens here? Another user, a friend of Billy's, threaten other users that want to correct the facts. Datagod, shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.42.80 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Aren't Randy Tufts and Bill Bastable contenders for having reached the split screen (much) earlier than Mitchell? I see two more issues with Mitchell's claim: First, both Mitchell himself and Walter Day are on record stating that Mitchell used at least six hours on his attempt. According to the Guinness book of record statues that would imply too much non-playing time to make the record eligible. The 5:30 time recorded for Mitchell appears to be a complete fabrication to make the attempt eligible. Second, nowhere I've seen a mentioning of Mitchell's tactic to play a "five men" version of Pac-Man. Choosing five instead of three lives to start with, increases the perfect score. One can see why he did it (to make his record untouchable) but a) was this also done to invalidate previous successful "three men" attempts, and b) any recording involving a "five men" play should mention that it was not achieved with factory settings. ClassA42 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Legend Stalking Incident

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, but this section seems dubious at best. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.86.78.65 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. The Biography of Living Persons page indicates that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and I felt that the section read like a tabloid. It was also poorly-sourced. It referred to an article appearing on the website of an organization that Mitchell is affiliated with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.86.78.65 (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The user that added that tabloid nonsense also removed a see also to "Cheating in Video Games" which... some cheating is hinted at in the current article, but that cheating article as written isn't relevant. It was briefly mentioned on reddit that that link had been added, which I would guess is possibly how the person ended up here and writing it. The user that added that link to Cheating in Video Games added a bunch of other see also links to articles related to Billy Mitchell and Todd Rogers. Adding the Billy Mitchell link to the MAME article at least is obviously bogus so maybe somebody ought to clean up that mess...

The Banhammer falls.

Billy's records have been removed from the Twin Galaxies DB. See the dispute thread here. The news is already on CNet and Variety. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC) ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Disgraced?

With reference to describing Mitchell as "disgraced" - this is sourced, and just because it's negative doesn't make it a POV issue - especially when the claim is backed up by more than a single source as is the case here.

Additionally - while Hitler himself may not be described as "evil", the term is used to describe his regime - and besides; WP:OTHERSTUFF prevails here.

Please discuss why the term should not be used? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on why it SHOULD be used. Compare this article to Pete Rose, Lance Armstrong, and other similarly disgraced athletes. The articles speak for themselves.Captbloodrock (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - wikipedia articles should not be used as a yardstick for other wikipedia articles.

The term is used in a plethora of articles to describe the scenario that made him become a "former competitive gamer" - that the term holds negative connotations is not a reason to exclude it. Being "neutral" does not mean that terms should not be used, rather that if they are used it is with good reason - and in this case there are multiple reliable sources that use the term to describe him:

• Disgraced Donkey Kong champ Billy Mitchell releases statement [1]
• Disgraced Donkey Kong Champ Billy Mitchell’s Redemption Is a Sloppy Soliloquy[2]
• Dethroned ‘King of Kong’ Promises Evidence He Didn’t Cheat[3]
• Who shot Billy Mitchell? – Reader’s Feature[4]
• Billy Mitchell says he’s “not going to stop now” after scoreboard ban (Disgraced score-chaser promises witnesses, documents will redeem his name)[5]
• Billy Mitchell, disgraced 'Donkey Kong' champ, defends disqualified video game scores[6]
• Disgraced Billy Mitchell makes statement after being stripped of arcade records[7]
• Disgraced Donkey Kong Master Says He's Got Proof He Didn't Cheat[8]
• Billy Mitchell vows to clear his name after being found guilty of cheating[9]

And I claim Godwin's Law for your use of Hitler: "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law." Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". The word "disgraced" seems disparaging to me. Instead, better to simply describe what happened to Mitchell, as we do later on in the paragraph. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 02:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I posit that we are simply describing what happened to him. I have provided eight different reliable sources to show that the term is being used to accurately describe him. The articles in question adhere to NPOV, and yet are comfortable with the term. I reiterate - this is not a word that has been thrown in for effect, but one that is being used by multiple news outlets as what they consider to be an accurate description of his status within the industry. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Former" works just fine for the lede sentence and avoids WP:LABEL. The word "disgraced" may have a place in the article, but not in the first sentence. ^Falling_Gravity 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• • I agree; its one thing if certain media sources call him "disgraced", but that doesn't make it wikis place to make a judgement like that. You can use quotation marks around it or otherwise specify that he is a person that many consider disgraced, but that's not the same as saying he IS. According to others I am sure he is "wrongly accused" instead. I am sure I could find plenty of articles calling Roseanne a racist, but that doesn't make it appropriate to start her article by describing her as "an actress, comedian and racist". No, you say she has been ACCUSED of racism, or "sometimes described as" racist. Unless its basically indisputable scientific facts, wiki ought to present everything as "this is what sources SAY is true", not "this is a fact, period". Personally, I don't know anything about the case, but I do know that without some further explamation I find even the description of him as "cheating" in the article seems excessive to me. It sounds more like he was disqualified for using equipment other than specified. Unless that gives you some clear advantage, its not "cheating". If it does give advantage it ought to explain this. Because it sounds to me like the poor ba#%rd accomplished something pretty admirable only to be disqualified over a technicality and then smeared as a "cheater" and "fraud" by a public ready to hate him ever since he was cast as the unlikeable douchebag in that film. I may be totally wrong but its still not for wiki to go beyond reporting what others claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.87.157 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Wikipedia lists Mitchell's DOB as July 17, 1965. Google has it as July 16. Neither cite a source. It doesn't seem like a big deal one way or the other but a citing a source on the DOB currently listed seems like a good idea.

Machine Man (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I just asked Billy's younger daughter about his birthday, and she says it's the 16th. I googled up this possible source: http://www.themanitoban.com/2009/12/introducing-billy-l-mitchell/

That source says "L" is Billy's middle initial. Wikipedia says his middle name is James. His daughter says the "L" was wrong and James is correct.

Billy earned the first perfect Pac-Man score of 3,333,360 in July 1999 in front of a live audience at the Funspot arcade in New Hampshire, and he repeated the feat this month (20 years later) at the same arcade on the same machine, with a live in-person audience and about 600 more of us watching online. This Wikipedia article creates the false impression that his 1999 score was unwitnessed, and I see that some editors are rejecting this month's live stream as a valid source. I think it should be accepted. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a write-up on Billy's first perfect Pac-Man score from 1999, which was widely reported, including in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.classicarcademuseum.org/billy-mitchell-achieves-perfect-pac-man-score-at-acam

Billy's longest-standing Donkey Kong record was set many years before emulators existed, and several of his later DK scores were also witnessed live. The Guinness Book of World Records defers to Twin Galaxies, which no longer recognizes any of Billy's high scores, but no one credibly asserts that none of those scores were ever valid. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

His kid

His son ended up kicking at West Point. But the existing link is just to some kicker fantasy camp. Even worth mentioning the kid? BoosterBronze (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The father-son connection got some media attention:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-R7ETd0ijA

I'd vote to leave it in. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchell's son was a first-team all-Florida football player who was named to Florida HS Football's all-finals team after a 27-yard field goal and a 70-yard punt in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. Wikipedia biographies routinely include noteworthy and reliably sourced information like this about immediate family members. 208.53.224.72 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchell's son is not a public figure, and I don't see how his football achievements are noteworthy or relevant to his father's biography. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You apparently don't see how it's noteworthy or relevant, but WPTV News in West Palm Beach did. Reliably sourced here: 208.53.224.72 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Personal life and family information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I left a message for "Smuckola" to let him know about the discussion on this talk page. He appears to be a pretty good copy editor, but I don't understand his objections to what I would have regarded as routine contributions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Smuckola, so that the user is aware of the attempt to discuss a dispute or matter here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Oshwah for labeling my unsigned comment and pinging Smuckola. Thanks also to Wallyfromdilbert for adding the reference box in the preceding section, but I really don't see how Wallyfromdilbert can continue to argue that Billy Mitchell's sister and children are irrelevant to his biography, especially when Mitchell has been included in media coverage of his sister's campaigns for Congress and his children are prominently featured in his documentary films. I'd obviously appreciate a clearer, more specific explanation of what Wallyfromdilbert would say constitutes relevance in this context. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I just found this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=908026153 208.53.227.250 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Serge, we have us a content crusader who's on a WP:3RR bender with a lake of oh-so-reliably-sourced WP:FANCRUFT over at Bitchy Mill! He's been warned countless times in edit messages and Talk page but WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we can't out-talk his war of words (and edit messages don't count), then we're wrong and all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are wrong. Anyway, 3RR. Update: he got a bunch of warnings, but I won't expect him to ever drop the stick. I guess he's Billy's son's football cheerleader. — Smuckola(talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  

The preceding comment is a quotation from the link above it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Smuckola apparently leveled those accusations against me based on my contributions of the second through fifth paragraphs (and references) under "Personal life" here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Mitchell_(video_game_player)&oldid=908024385#Personal_life
Also for the record, Smuckola has yet to offer a single comment to the discussion on this talk page, and Wallyfromdilbert, the other editor who objects to my contributions, doesn't appear to be participating either. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if it was inappropriate for me to ping Sergecross73 here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I can try to mediate, as I have no real opinion or interest here. Why do you feel your additions are essential to the article? Sergecross73 msg me 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I'd describe the "Personal life" section as supplemental rather than essential. If my contributions are essential, it's probably just because most of the people who take the time to read a Wikipedia article about Billy Mitchell will enjoy them. To clarify, I pinged you mainly to give you a chance to evaluate Smuckola's accusations against me in context. He seems to regard you as a buddy, so you wouldn't have been my first choice to mediate. No offense intended. Thanks for at least acknowledging my attempts to discuss this. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I encourage editors in the video game and music content area to come to me if they need administrative help. I did not intervene because I supported or opposed either side of the argument, but rather because I saw edit warring, which is not okay on Wikipedia. When people oppose your edits, you need to stop and discuss, not continually try to re-add them over and over again. That’s said, the editors who oppose you should also be more active in engaging in discussion of their stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sergecross73. I understand your responsibility to stop edit warring, and I don't hold your decision to semi-protect the article against you. Wallyfromdilbert continues to argue that Billy Mitchell's sister and children are irrelevant to his biography, even though Mitchell has been included in media coverage of his sister's campaigns for Congress and his children are prominently featured in his documentary films. I'd obviously appreciate a clearer, more specific explanation of what Wallyfromdilbert would say constitutes relevance in this context. Instead he just obliterates my contributions, instructs me to "please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting the content", and then refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. It feels like I'm being bullied by two editors (one of whom apparently refers to Billy Mitchell as "Bitchy Mill" and resents the fact that Mitchell's son was a first-team all-Florida football player). What recourse do I have in this situation? Thanks again. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert and Smuckola - please engage on the talk page further about this issue. You can’t tell someone that there’s no consensus for an edit and then not participate in discussions. Also be aware that WP:BLP guidelines apply to talk pages as well, so you cannot be calling the subject names. Sergecross73 msg me 11:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Hi Serge. As I clearly said in the report to you and as has always clearly been stated in the talk page and edit messages, which I dont know why nobody can read at all, no such thing happened. We stated the summary rationale according to all the cited guidelines and policies which the person completely ignored the entire existence of with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This includes their edit warring against the encyclopedia itself until you just now absolutely physically forced the issue and interrogated directly. Then they just directly laid out to you personally their rationale for nonessential and irrelevant content directed solely at indulging the imagined personal pleasure of hypothetical fanatics, aka WP:FANCRUFT. Arent you touched that he disclaimed his privilege of blocking you from doing your job without contriving an accusation of personal attacks? So what else do you want me to say dear sir? Cowtow to his demand for another personally written summary of the content of those nonexistent policies and guidelines that we didn’t already directly link to? Shall I just repaste it or need I retype it in a higher and more accusatory pitch to match his? Sorry, I'm on mobile. Totally ignoring the existence of all policies, guidelines, decorum, and even existing discussion itself, is not a content dispute or even a legitimate discussion; it’s a disruptive behavior coaching, and I brought in the admin to end the disruptive editing, perchance to again refer the abuser to the guidelines and policies and existing discussion and for them to thus WP:DROPTHESTICK. A mill is a place where stuff is made, not a name to call a person, sorry for the obvious joke. So please do let me know exactly what more you would like to be done that hasn't already been done, and then maybe I can do that if this ever someday finally does become a content issue and thus exits your realm into mine. I can repaste the list of totally ignored wikilinks to all the offended guidelines and policies, WP:BLP WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:PLOT, all of which disclaim the significance of what could be a WP:RS when it's used to cite WP:UNDUE WP:TRIVIA even if in other articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and to which I'm seriously considering adding WP:NOTHERE. They do exist, and that is so they can be read and pored and labored over and personally comprehended, to take to a help desk to discuss the fine points with WP:COMPETENCY. — Smuckola(talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not the editor conduct I’m asking you to explain, I would just like you to explain, in more plain English, why you oppose the content additions. He’s obviously not well versed in policy, so something a little more universally understood. Perhaps “it’s not an important aspect of the subject” or “those aren’t reliable sources” or something like that. I’m not personally questioning anything here, it’s just clear that the arguments aren’t clearly being communicated on either side I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You just replied to my having done exactly that, exactly as you just paraphrased, in my last two sentences. Again. As I already said in my edit messages and on your talk page. Even the names of the policies are so perfectly clear and germane that they serve as words in the sentence. And oh yeah not all of the given sources are WP:RS and the rest are weak local news at best, which Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS). Wallyfromdilbert couldn't have said more crystal clear in the Talk page above, before this editor needlessly created a second redundant thread, that the subject's child is not notable, is not a public figure, and not relevant. The editor unilaterally declared the end of the discussion as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and proceeded to unilaterally edit war, and then complain that the discussion attempt above doesn't exist and never happened. Then recite to you their singular commitment to the definition of WP:FANCRUFT. I'm sorry to say sir, but you are enabling their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT and amplifying their self-victimization. That editor is the only one who will not read or discuss, without even a pretense of attempting to read the documents but rather just repeatedly bleating their own fancruft advocacy and self-victimization fantasy alone in a vacuum. — Smuckola(talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wally’s comment below, as he has provided that brief, simple, summary of their stance that I’ve been requesting. It’s a simple, reasonable request, and the starting point for any sort of mediated discussion. Simple and shortly restate your stance on the content itself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the additional content by the IP editor — who is editing under 208.53.227.250 (talk), 208.53.236.34 (talk), 208.53.224.72 (talk), 208.53.230.247 (talk), and 208.53.224.239 (talk) — is not relevant to a biography on Billy Mitchell. If his family members have done notable things, then their achievements would be appropriate for their own Wikipedia articles. If the information related to Mitchell in some way other than him merely being a family member, then it may possibly be relevant to his biography. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or trivia (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The reason given by the IP editor ("because most of the people who take the time to read a Wikipedia article about Billy Mitchell will enjoy them") is not an adequate reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, which is based on encyclopedic value as related to the article subject. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly the sort of discussion I was asking for, and these are all valid arguments per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The content is subject to WP:BLP but it is a very basic case of obviously unencyclopedic content. As is also seen in the agenda the editor explicitly described, it is actually WP:FANCRUFT WP:NEWSPAPER WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:PLOT based content. The video stuff is more akin to a shred of a plot summary about an unrelated movie, and all of it is a "who's who" of names—except of nobodies, not public figures, not authorities, and not of substantial works. The content does not define the article's subject or its notability, and the content's existence is not even owed to the subject's notability. Many or all of its sources are weak and fail WP:BLPRS in a way akin to tabloid journalism. Overall the sources seen in the written word, and the given description of the video sources, are indiscriminate, trivial, tangiential, unencyclopedic content with an admittedly contrived attempt at justification. Even if there was what would normally be a WP:RS among them, the subject matter would fail WP:UNDUE and the previously mentioned list of wikilinked anti-trivia documents. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other articles, thank you for the notice, as that should be deleted too. — Smuckola(talk) 00:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly what I was asking you for. Okay, that’s two policy-based arguments against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again to Sergecross73 for intervening here. I'm planning to submit further arguments for inclusion, but if you'd like to remove protection from the article, you have my word that I won't try to restore the family information under discussion before there's a consensus to do so. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If you find yourself at a stalemate after that, a WP:WIKIPROJECT, such as WP:VG, can be neutrally contacted to see if any additional people would like to weigh in as well. You just have to be careful not to be WP:CANVASSING or trying to “recruit” people for your cause. It would have to be something neutral like “Hi, we’re having a dispute on what content to add to the Billy Mitchel article, please come weigh in”. It can’t be “Hey come help me convince people that I’m right in including my content” type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thank you. Is there a standard Wikipedia protocol that governs indentation and other formatting on talk pages? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure - WP:TALKPAGE gives some general pointers, while WP:INDENTATION gives pointers on indentation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks. I'm open to being advised or directly edited if I continue to mess up the indentation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Also, would you mind labeling the unsigned comment above? (Ugh.) 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Never mind. I think I got it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Our service provider sometimes changes our IP address when we power up the router. I haven't discerned a pattern that would enable me to explain when or why. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. During our first conversation on your personal talk page,[10] you tried to point me to something at WP:BLP, but I wasn't sure what. Do you remember? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the BLP policy is important. You should read it carefully, along with all of the related policies, including WP:What Wikipedia is not. Biographies must be written conservatively, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid, does not indiscriminately collect information, and favors privacy (especially for those who are not public figures). Random trivia about family members is also simply unencyclopedic. You may want to work on some non-biographical information if you are still learning some of the more fundamental policies governing editing, especially since BLPs have many more rules to understand. For your IP address, you should create an account or disclose your previous editing IPs when appropriate to avoid violating WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks for the response. I'd read WP:BLP carefully before, and I read it again when you referenced it in our discussion on your personal talk page, and I read it again this afternoon. I also read "What Wikipedia is not" yesterday after you linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It would be helpful to me if you'd tell me exactly what part of an article you're trying to point me to, and maybe even directly quote from it, because there seem to be many things in each of these articles that aren't directly relevant to the specific content under discussion here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks also for cleaning up my indentation and line breaks. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've quoted the policies numerous times. If you don't understand them, then avoid BLP articles. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Just to be clear, my question here was about what part of the WP:BLP policies you were trying to point me to during our initial conversation on your personal talk page, and the question was part of an honest effort to understand. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Billy Mitchell's son was an all-state, all-finals, top-100 national prospect who apparently went on to earn a scholarship to West Point, and Mitchell's sister won heavily contested Republican primaries in 2010 and 2012 to challenge Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her seat in the United States House of Representatives. I don't want to offend you, but I (predictably) don't agree with your description of these family members as "nobodies". Are you sure that's a fair characterization? Come on, fella. Work with me here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

To explain their point a little more: I believe the two editors are trying to tell you that his family life isn’t particularly tied to the reasons why Billy is notable, and aren’t independently notable themselves (in the capacity that they dont have their own articles at least), and therefore should probably be kept to a minimum. That’s likely what they’re driving at when they cite things like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for the clarification. My perception that Mitchell's son is particularly relevant here is probably influenced by the content of the WPTV News story I've referenced, which directly explores his relevance to Mitchell's career and personal life, but wouldn't a two-time major-party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives normally have a biography on Wikipedia? I've seen Wikipedia biographies of many, many less significant state and local political figures. Is this an oversight on Wikipedia's part or simply a case of "other stuff exists" in which the biographies of the less significant political figures should be removed? I don't necessarily expect you to respond to these questions if you're trying to stay neutral in this discussion, but I'd definitely be interested in the opinions of any administrator or editor who wants to address them. (As a side note, I've attempted to thread my preceding comment to the Smuckola comment from which it quotes, and I'm wondering whether I was successful.) 208.53.227.250 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Billy’s claim to notability is video game records. How exactly are his children’s activities in football and politics related to that? If there’s a connection, these edits aren’t making it readily apparent. I don’t edit much in politics, so I’m not sure at what point politicians tend to have their own article. But yes, you may want to consider asking for outside input if you wish to keep pursuing this, as Wally and Smuckola seem pretty steadfast in their stance here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidates who have lost in state or local elections are generally not notable. The political figures you have seen were likely either actually elected or are notable for a reason other than losing their elections. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's kinda weird that information about Mitchell's sister and son sat in this article for four and a half years and only got removed after I'd spent nearly two hours of research on a good-faith effort to improve the sources. It's kinda weird that there's a "Personal life" section where even the most public information about the subject's personal life is forbidden. And it's kinda weird that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that there are no firm rules, when the rules are actually insanely detailed and inflexible. I'm apparently faced with a choice between dropping the stick and pursuing a lost cause on principle, and I think I need some time to think about it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I tend to explain it with this analogy: Let’s say you drive way over the speed limit every day to work for 5 months. Nothing happens. But on day 151, a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket. You say “well nothing happened those other days, so why do I get a ticket today?” Does that get you out of the ticket? No. Same concept here. You may witness errors and mistakes on Wikipedia. That doesn’t make it right, and it’s not a defense for when it’s caught. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: So you admit this whole nightmare has actually been about punishing me, and for good-faith efforts to improve an article, no less. I think the core flaw in your analogy is probably that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" (WP:5P5).
@Smuckola: Read WP:CIVIL. All of it. Nearly every sentence applies to you. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I’m saying that there have likely been many mistakes made, and sadly it’s just this one - yours - that was caught. That’s sometimes how things work with WP:WATCHLISTs - only recent changes are seen. My point is that we don’t handle it by saying “well there’s lots of mistakes so let’s allow this mistake too”, it is “there’s lots of mistakes so let’s fix them all”. And you’re misunderstanding Wikipedia’s ”ignore all rules” concepts. They’re not a license for everyone to do whatever they want or win every argument. If people used the concept as you’re attempting to, then everyone would invoke it all the time, and every argument would end in a stalemate. It’s more of a “don’t let bureaucracy get in the way of improving an article. These editors have multiple policy based reasons why these additions do not improve the article. You seem to be struggling to persuade anyone that your additions are improvements. It seems like your comments have degraded in complaining and finger pointing. I recommend either neutrally contacting WP:VG for input (I can do it for you if you prefer) or dropping it, though I will say that, in my experience, the arguments you’ve presented so far are unlikely to convince experienced editors. Wally and Smuckolas stances are not uncommon or unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 05:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying "there's lots of mistakes so let's allow this mistake too". I'm saying the article is better and more useful with the reliably sourced family information included. You disagree, but don't put words in my mouth. I'm also not saying WP:IAR is "a license for everyone to do whatever they want". I'm saying splitting hairs over whether a two-time major-party nominee for the United States House of Representatives qualifies as "notable" in this context is insane. To me that seems like the very epitome of "letting bureaucracy get in the way", not just of improving the article but of common sense. You disagree, but don't put words in my mouth. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I put words in your mouth when I misunderstood your "ticket" analogy. The irony isn't lost on me, and I apologize. I also apologize for my declining civility and more aggressive tone. I just see this so differently from the way you guys do. Plus I just noticed that only one person has even watched the WPTV News story during this discussion, which is disappointing to say the least. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, people are often surprised that there’s a high learning curve to editing Wikipedia correctly, especially when they’re editing BLPs and higher traffic articles that have a number of people monitoring it. I get it - it clashes pretty hard with the “write whatever I want” culture and attitude that flows so freely across social media, blogging, etc. but it is what it is. I’ve given you the proper avenues forward. Some take it to heart, learn, and become constructive editors. Some leave to contribute to other websites. Others fight it and ignore the correct ways, and find themselves blocked or locked out if editing pages. It’s up to you which path you chose from here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's increasingly apparent that there are aspects of the Wikipedia subculture I'd never known about, but I obviously don't appreciate the condescending insinuations that my contributions reflect a "random", "indiscriminate", "write whatever I want" approach. I've done my best to explain why I believe Mitchell's sister and children are relevant to his biography. Is it possible that we have an honest difference of opinion? Everyone but me seems to agree: (1) The fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography. (2) The fact that Mitchell included his (unnamed) children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography. Would anyone like to take one last shot at helping a lowly, unwashed IP editor understand the distinction? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t understand why you believe it important. You’ve made it very clear that you think it’s important and bettering the article, but you really haven’t articulated why. Like, if his son took after him and started going after game records, or became a notable game dev because of his fathers records, it make sense. But as you keep presenting it on the article, it’s just completely disconnected ideas:

1. Dad won a Donkey Kong record.
2. Son does well in high school football.
3. Sister goes into politics, loses some important elections.

Do you really not see how random this all reads? Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who organized those contributions, so they predictably don't seem random to me. As I've said above, I think I'd describe the "Personal life" section as supplemental rather than essential. I'm wondering why you'd say it's important to tell Wikipedia readers that Mitchell lives in Florida and raised three children, especially if we're not allowed to provide five sentences of contextual information about their lives there. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You’ve again attempted to deflect rather than answer this very basic question. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My "deflection" calls attention to the fact that my contributions are being subjected to a double standard. Why would you say it's important to tell Wikipedia readers that Mitchell lives in Florida and raised three children? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont find that particularly important to mention either. If this were an article that I created/maintained/edited, I would not have added the bit about Florida either. Anyways, it seems you probably don’t have a good explanation or I wouldn’t have to ask you multiple times. So I’m going to wrap things up. As is, you currently do not have a WP:CONSENSUS to add your proposed information. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, challenged proposed content additions that do not have a consensus are not to be added to the article. If you attempt to add it without consensus, you’ll find yourself blocked or locked out of editing the article. If you wish to get a consensus in your favor, neutrally contact a WikiProject like WP:VG to see if there is anyone else interested in weighing in. That’s all thats left to say. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

As media coverage of the perfect game transcended the retrogaming community and made Mitchell a semi-celebrity, he continued operating the family business and raising three children. Mitchell included his children in both of his 2007 documentary film projects. An interview with his stepdaughter appears in the DVD bonus footage of The King of Kong, while an interview with his younger daughter and son appears in Chasing Ghosts.

In 2015, Mitchell reportedly turned down an invitation to a gaming convention in Australia because he refused to miss a Florida high school football game featuring his similarly driven son, an all-state, all-finals, top-100 national prospect as a kicker and punter at American Heritage-Delray.

References

As is hopefully apparent, this proposed compromise condenses some of the information, clarifies its relevance, and completely removes all references to Mitchell's sister and place of residence. I'd obviously appreciate any feedback. Thanks. 208.53.231.107 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the compromise offer above as I reconsider the notability and relevance of Mitchell's sister. 208.53.231.107 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smuckola: In your explanation for reverting the modified content, you write, "not any different content except to be *more* blatantly promotional and aggressively irrelevant as was conclusively decided on Talk". First off, in more than ten days, no one had raised any objection to the modified content on this talk page. Secondly, the most significant differences in the content are the removal of the name of Mitchell's son and the removal of information about his performance in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. How would you say excluding that information makes the content more "blatantly promotional"? Finally, to follow up on a question I've already asked above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is "aggressively irrelevant" to his biography? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that, the fact remains that there was no consensus to add the original wording, and the compromise proposal was “withdrawn”, so there’s no possible scenario where it was appropriate to make that edit. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Have mercy on me, Lord Vader. All these years of editing Wikipedia, and no one ever told me I needed a "scenario" before. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty certain you were told of the concept of consensus and “no consensus” multiple times. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You indicated there was no consensus to add the original content because it wasn't clearly relevant. I proposed modified content that left out some of the information and explicitly stated the relevance of the rest. I said I'd appreciate feedback on the modified content, but no one offered any, including Smuckola, Wallyfromdilbert, and you. The revision I eventually made wasn't the same revision for which you'd said there was no consensus, and no one has given me anything resembling a specific reason for objecting to the modified content. Pretty certain you've been told this multiple times. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The sentiments here are too similar to the original proposed content to realistically think people’s stances had changed. Which is why I’ve told you that if you can’t make common sense calls like this, wait for others to do it for you. Or the page will just remain protected. Sergecross73 msg me 09:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: When it's used as an adjective, Webster says commonsense is one word.[11] Your "stance" toward the original content was that it consisted of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflected a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Are you saying you have that same "stance" toward the modified content? If you do, it's an absurdity, not a commonsense call. I said I'd appreciate feedback on the modified content, but no one offered any, including you. How would you say I was supposed to know what I could "realistically think" about your "stance" before I'd made the revision? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let’s look at it another way. I explained to you how to move forward. How do you reconcile “what I told you” with “what you did”? Was “make a similar proposal, rescind it, then add it without re-proposing or getting a consensus” one of the paths I laid out? No, it wasn’t. No, of course not. Because it neither a viable path nor what you were instructed to do. I can’t stress enough that this bizarre path you’re taking this discussion is not helping you in any way, and your time is much better spent working on getting a consensus than trying to argue that this approach was valid. It was not, but even if it was, you were reverted again almost instantly, showing that there clearly wasn’t a consensus either way. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You ask how I reconcile what you told me with what I did. You told me you objected to the original content because it consisted of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflected a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach, so I proposed modified content that clarified the relevance of the information and said I'd appreciate any feedback. Contrary to your ongoing false accusations, this approach isn't "bizarre". Would you say the modified content consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? 208.53.224.239 (talk)

Good job on at least starting a discussion on this topic. But that was only half of the process. I instructed you to get a consensus too. You did not. Get one. Or drop it. As for the proposal itself, I remind you that I’m mediating. You need not convince me. I’m just here facilitating discussion, explaining the process and rules, and reading the consensus. But it’s rather obvious that your proposal is just a slightly revised version of the same thing. There’s no meaningful connection to his career shown. Things like just noting the fact that they were interviewed once a decade back isn’t a meaningful connection. Again, you don’t need to convince me of anything other than that a consensus exists, I’m just throwing you a bone here since you still seem oblivious. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: The fact that Mitchell included his children in both of his 2007 documentary film projects is a meaningful connection to his career, and WPTV News did the entire story I've cited on the connection between Mitchell's gaming career and his son's football career. Your claim that there's "no meaningful connection to his career shown" is absurd. In any case, what Wikipedia policy would you say requires information in the "Personal life" section to show a meaningful connection to the subject's career? Would you say the already included fact that Mitchell has three children shows a meaningful connection to his career? You claimed the original content consisted of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflected a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, you’re arguing with the mediator instead of working on a consensus. I merely tried to give you a tip - better tie your additions to the subject’s notability. It’s a viable approach to convincing people of the inclusion of new content. If you don’t want to, or feel you’ve done a good enough job of tying it to the subject, that’s your prerogative. But until you have a consensus that supports it, it’s not to be added. Sergecross73 msg me 09:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus not achieved

I’ve protected the page again, as it seems someone has decided to re-add information despite there clearly being no consensus to do so. Ignoring policy and just trying to do whatever you want when you think no one is looking is not an option. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: When I proposed the modified content more than ten days ago, you almost immediately unprotected the page. When no one raised any objection to the modified content, I thought that constituted consent. I'm not ignoring policy, and I'm not trying to do whatever I want when I think no one is looking. As far as I can tell, someone is always looking. You've now gone beyond suggesting I'm intentionally destructive to suggesting I'm stupid. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not actively unprotect the page, but rather, I protected the page for a set amount of time (1 week) and it automatically expired. Regardless, I’ve explained your options to you multiple times, and “just go for it again when protection ends” was most definitely not one of them, so I have a hard time believing that you didn’t know better. Anyways, re-read the old discussions if you need to recap on how to proceed. Rest assured, just re-adding it again after protection ends is not a viable option. Sergecross73 msg me

You originally protected the page from July 26 to August 2, and I was still unable to edit it late in the day on August 3. Your suggestion that I decided to "just go for it again when protection ends" isn't true, as any reasonably honest and intelligent person could see from the timeline of events. It's amazing to me that you allow Smuckola and his apparent bitterness toward Billy Mitchell to wreak this much havoc here while he refuses to answer even the most basic questions about the content itself, which is neutral, relevant, and reliably sourced. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your supposed compromise above was the same content that was inappropriate in the first place, and it was then "withdrawn" by you [12] because you wanted to readd the small amount of material you had removed. A slightly shorter version also in no way addresses the concerns raised above, and it ignores the very clear options that were laid out, which do not include readding the content. Finally, please avoid making accusations about other editors and instead assume good faith as per WP:AGF. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: We obviously disagree about what content is appropriate. To repeat the question I've already asked above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? The modified content I've proposed explicitly states its relevance to Mitchell's personal life, and your claim that it "in no way addresses the concerns raised above" is absurd. I've tried to assume good faith, but being subjected to multiple false accusations and one double standard after another has unfortunately made that impossible. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Mitchell took first place at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane literally five days ago. Why do you insist on repeatedly reinserting the blatantly, objectively false claim that he's a "former" competitive gamer into the article? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Mitchell's primary occupation is running his hot sauce business. He's barely been involved in the day-to-day operation of the family restaurant for several years now. Why do you insist on repeatedly removing the fact that Mitchell is a successful businessman from the article? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content on biographies of living people. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Okay, so where's your reliable source that says Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer? As far as his hot sauce business goes, maybe google it,[13] and take your pick. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

From that source: Mitchell, a 49-year-old restaurateur and hot sauce purveyor. "Businessman" is not in it, and I don't see the need for both descriptors when restaurateur seems to cover his restaurant and hot sauce business, and seems to be used far more often in the sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restaurateur 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: The initial Donkey Kong world record that stood until August of 2000 dates from August of 1982. Why did you change it to 1984? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I clearly told you that the only path forward was to get a consensus and you objectively did not, and made the edit anyways. Anything else is just noise. Now either get a consensus in your favor, or drop it. You’re not going to bicker your way around this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You're not going to "bicker your way around this" either. The edit I eventually made wasn't the same edit we'd discussed here. No one objected to the modified content I'd proposed on this talk page. If you want me to stop responding to your false accusations, stop making them. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You can’t argue that “no one objected” a proposal you withdrew shortly after proposing. And regardless of slight tweaks, the general sentiments were clearly not supported by a consensus. Multiple editors made it abundantly clear they objected to expanding the personal life content about his family members. Sergecross73 msg me 10:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: "Shortly"? Nearly two full days had passed since I'd said I'd appreciate any feedback on the modified content. Suddenly all three of you were quiet as mice, and you finally unprotected the article. Are you suggesting one of you would have responded if I'd only waited a few more days? You originally objected to including the content about Mitchell's family members on the grounds that it wasn't clearly relevant, so I removed some of the content and modified the rest to explicitly state its relevance. Why are you still objecting? No one has given me anything resembling specifics. Can you not imagine how from my perspective you might just seem like bullies on a power trip? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How many different ways do you need me to tell you you’re in the wrong here? You made an edit without consensus. Don’t do that. That’s all there is to it. I’ll let you know when it’s appropriate to add it to the article. You just focus yourself on getting a consensus. I’ll let you know when you have one. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't need you to tell me I'm in the wrong at all. I need you to tell me why you're still objecting to the modified content. You don't object when other editors make revisions without consensus. You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer without consensus. You only seem to object to content that's reliably sourced and objectively true, and every word of your last comment reinforces my perception that you're a bully on a power trip. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If you create a separate discussion on a different point, like whether or not he’s a business man, and consensus falls one way, and and editor makes an edit against it, then protection/blocks will be made accordingly. But that’s not where we’re at on any other points. Please start by starting new discussions for these separate discussions points. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Why wouldn't that policy apply to repeated false claims by Wallyfromdilbert that Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, unless the claim is particularly blatant and offensive (“Actress X is a dirty whore!”), these are generally the type of thing where there was a discussion, it was deemed inappropriate, and they keep doing it anyways. You seem to keep skipping that key crucial step - discussion/consensus/documentation - in your accusations, which is why action was taken against your actions and not others. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Repeatedly reinserting the bogus claim that Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming clearly constitutes a "particularly blatant and offensive" violation of WP:BLP, but why would you say that's relevant? The policy says contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed immediately "without waiting for discussion". 208.53.230.247 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion on your objection and proposed solution/change. Sergecross73 msg me 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed immediately "without waiting for discussion". Why would you say that policy doesn't apply to Wallyfromdilbert's repeated reinsertions of the bogus claim that Billy Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You haven’t provided an explanation of the exact thing you want changed, nor have you provided any sources as evidence to any point. If you want change, you need to explain yourself, and by doing that, you may as well start a new section, as it can be hard to ascertain consensus, or even get input, when discussions go long and into various differing directions. It seems like if you were truly concerned about the urgency - that there isn’t time to discuss such a thing - then you’d have started a discussion on it rather than letting days elapse while you argue with the mediator on what to do when you were just told how to proceed. Have you not figured out that fighting everyone every step of the way on protocol has halted your progress on editing the article 100%? The time you spend discussing things that don’t go towards consensus building is truly baffling considering consensus building is the one thing you need to move forward your changes. Sergecross73 msg me 11:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You're really in no position to credibly lecture anyone about discussions going "long and into various differing directions". Contrary to your continued false accusations and insinuations, I'm not "fighting everyone every step of the way" on protocol. As I'd pointed out over a week ago, "You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a 'former' competitive gamer without consensus." Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed immediately "without waiting for discussion". Why would you say that policy doesn't apply in this case? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Seven days ago, on the 18th, I explained I explained to you that this wasn’t the type of violation that warrants instant removal, and that you need to start a new discussion. Rather than doing the very simple and easy act of starting a new discussion, you’ve spent literally a week arguing about my very basic instruction. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say you spend way too much time fighting every step of the way instead of working towards getting a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You made a couple of unsourced claims on the 18th but never really "explained" anything. Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed "without waiting for discussion" regardless of whether the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Why would you say that policy doesn't apply to Wallyfromdilbert's repeated reinsertions of the bogus claim that Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It would make a lot more sense to just start a new section and provide a few sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: There are no reliable sources for your repeated reinsertions of the bogus and possibly libelous claim that Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming. 208.53.224.239 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions for Sergecross73

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Sergecross73: In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? Also, per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed "without waiting for discussion" regardless of whether the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". WP:BLP further states, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Why would you say this policy doesn't apply to Wallyfromdilbert's repeated reinsertions of the bogus claim that Billy Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I again remind you that you need not convince me, the mediator of the quality of your addition. You need to convince me there is a consensus in your favor to allow for inclusion. And as as far as the BLP concern goes, I already told you, you still haven’t even made it clear what exact content you want changed, and to what. Please provide a WP:DIF of the exact edit you feel violated our BLP policy and outline the exact text you feel violates it. And note that if your response is anything besides a consensus building proposal or a dif of what you feel is the BLP violating edit, this discussion will be closed as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: The suggestion that you're merely a "mediator" here is absurd. I'm not trying to convince you of the quality of my contributions, and I don't need to convince you of anything. I'm asking a straightforward yes-or-no question. In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Altering others' comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This will be the first and only warning on this. Do not alter the content of anyone else’s comments. Happen again, and the talk page will be temporarily protected. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Why wouldn't you just temporarily block the offender from editing the talk page? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Because your IP changes all the time. Protection is the method used when people change IP addresses frequently. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not the one who altered the content. I created a new section in a good-faith effort to improve the clarity and readability of the page. Wallyfromdilbert altered the content when he undid the edit and removed my comment. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Im talking about you. Don’t do that. Don’t make it look different or change the context from when people originally commented. At worst, it may misrepresent prior meanings of past comments, and at best, it’s unnecessary. This is all connected to why I tell you “don’t pose unrelated questions in the middle of longer discussions”. They get lost in the shuffle, and refactoring causes context issues. Please just start new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. There’s even a “new section” button at the top of the page. Click it, write something, and click “publish changes”. It’s that simple. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Is there a "New section" button on the mobile version of the talk page? And when you say you're talking about me, do you mean to say you're accusing me of altering the content of someone else's comments? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’m not familiar with the mobile site, I don’t use it, so I can’t help you there. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: When you say you're talking about me, do you mean to say you're accusing me of altering the content of someone else's comments? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’m talking about how you’re recutting discussions and adding section titles that weren’t there before when people were originally leaving the comments. Don’t do that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to altering the content of someone else's comments on a talk page? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Sergecross73: You seem to be ignoring the above question, even though you've responded to one of my subsequent comments in another section. Did you notice the linked revision to this talk page, in which Wallyfromdilbert deleted my citations of his past editorial decisions before I even had an opportunity to comment on them? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

−

Yes, of course there. Read up on them. It doesn’t make sense for you to question every single thing I say when you’re completely unaware of the policies to begin with. Look it up and figure it out for yourself. It’s not my responsibility to spoon-feed you the very basics. And no, I didn’t notice that, and no, he probably shouldn’t have removed it. But I also have no idea why you would waste your time typing that all out. That editor just told you he doesn’t want to discuss with you. Why would think a sprawling rambling post like that would work when it hasn’t the last 20 times you tried it? That wasn’t going to get you anywhere. Stop these drawn out badgering and just propose some direct/distinct changes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Wallyfromdilbert just deleted the same content again. If you're not even going to give him some kind of warning, could you please restore the content yourself? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’ve instructed him to restore it. If he doesn’t, I will before it’s archived. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Cheating"/Neutrality/BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Sergecross73: A key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated (see the top of the third page in this tweet): https://mobile.twitter.com/ersatz_cats/status/1177840834311385088 ... And yet somehow a "neutral" Wikipedia article uses "Cheating" as a section header. In some parts of the U.S., including mine, the word cheat is essentially an epithet. I'd recommend "Disputed score performances". It's condescending and unencyclopedic to spoon-feed value judgments to readers. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For new subjects, please start new discussions. To request changes while an article is protected, please use the WP:EDITREQUEST system. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: If Twin Galaxies is defending itself against defamation allegations by explicitly citing the fact that it never claimed Mitchell cheated, isn't the article's claim that he cheated a violation of WP:BLP? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This WP:NEUTRAL / WP:BLP issue was resolved through a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. The results can be viewed here and here. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Popular Culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the movie 2015 PIXELS, the character Eddie (played by Peter Dinklage) is clearly based in part on or inspired by Mitchell. Would that be worth a mention? Of course, that is not exactly a compliment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.13.163 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If this were done, it would have to be worded carefully according to what reliable sources state, or it would violate WP:OR and WP:BLP. A brief Google search seemed to suggest that some RS journalists also made that connection, but that the movie and its makers itself do not ever officially establish the connection. If this is true, it would have to be worded accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: According to the Business Insider article at the following link, Pixels director Chris Columbus has confirmed that the character Eddie Plant is partially based on Mitchell: https://www.businessinsider.com/pixels-peter-dinklage-playing-billy-mitchell-2015-7 216.249.254.82 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yup, it cites an Uproxx interview that says Q: Is Peter Dinklage’s character based on Billy Mitchell? A: Part of his performance is inspired by Billy Mitchell. So something to that capacity could be added, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 05:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: The first paragraph in the "Biography" section includes an incorrect age and an inaccurate quotation. Per the cited source, Mitchell was around age 16 when he started playing video games. As they became more popular, according to Mitchell, "Everyone was standing around the Donkey Kong machine and I wanted that attention". 208.53.226.47 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Wallyfromdilbert: You've now taken the time to make three separate revisions to this talk page applying WP:SPA tags to six of my comments, but you haven't taken the time to correct "at age 12" to "around age 16" in the article. Fixing blatant errors in the content seems to be a lower priority for you than presenting Mitchell in the worst light you think you can get away with, and there's a whole list of examples to support that perception. If you insist on suggesting that my revisions violate WP:NEUTRAL, I'll be glad to present the evidence that yours do. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Under that reasoning, you’re equally to blame, as you are aware of issues but have not done an WP:EDITREQUEST to fix it either. But the truth is that it’s a volunteer project, and no one is required to do anything. And that said, if you don’t stop with the idle complaining and start suggesting som constructive changes, I’m going to start protecting the talk page too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not reasoning that Wallyfromdilbert is to blame for the uncorrected content. I'd say your deceitfully rationalized page protection is to blame for that. Wallyfromdilbert is to blame for repeatedly violating WP:NEUTRAL and then employing an absurd double standard to suggest I'm violating it. You keep pushing me to make formal edit requests, but you assure me that those requests will be "inevitably rejected"[14] before you even know what they are. It really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. As I'd first asked you nearly two weeks ago, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So, to be clear, your approach is to repeatedly ask questions of someone you outwardly don’t trust, and reject an approach that would involve asking the input of an unrelated editor? See, this is why I call your discussions unconstructive. You don’t seem to want to do anything other than just argue circles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: In the interest of showing you how to answer a question, yes, that's my approach for now. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you’re openly admitting that you’re just here to argue and have no intention on engaging in discussion related to edit requests or making constructive change to the article, we’re done here. These talk pages are for improving the article, not idle complaining and airing of every grievance that comes to mind. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: That obviously isn't what I'm saying. All of my discussion here is ultimately related to making constructive change to the article. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your comment has nothing to do with article content. Please review the Talk page guidelines and only make appropriate comments. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Sergecross73 suggested I was "openly admitting" that I had no intention of engaging in discussion related to making constructive change to the article. I clarified that all of my discussion here is ultimately related to making constructive change to the article. Your claim that my comment had nothing to do with article content is absurd. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You asking if there are procedures for removing admin has nothing to do with this article, full stop. You need to get to wrapping up these discussions very soon or I’m going to start archiving talk pages again. If you haven’t noticed, none of these discussions are leading to any actual change with the articles. You need to get a clue. What you’ve been doing for months has not been working. You’ve been arguing for months and have almost nothing to show for it. Stop wasting your own time. Change your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Wallyfromdilbert: We talked about this briefly in August, but Sergecross73 unilaterally closed and archived the discussion before we resolved it. Billy Mitchell's primary occupation is running his hot sauce business. He's barely been involved in the day-to-day operation of the family restaurant for several years now. Why do you insist on repeatedly removing the fact that Mitchell is a "businessman" from the opening sentence of the article? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no interest in engaging with your tendentious editing or bad faith assumptions. Submit an edit request and provide sources to support your claims. Wikipedia does not include original research. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I'd provided you with this source two months ago: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-pacman-birthday-party-met-20150522-story.html ... You replied (here [15]) by admitting Mitchell has a hot sauce business but claiming you didn't "see the need for both descriptors when restaurateur seems to cover his restaurant and hot sauce business". I'd then posted this link[16] to the definition of restaurateur. You predictably didn't respond. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Wallyfromdilbert: Once again you add the WP:SPA tag to suggest I'm violating WP:NEUTRAL, but you don't explain why you insist on repeatedly removing the fact that Mitchell is a businessman from the opening sentence of the article. It seems to me that if anyone is promoting an agenda here, you are. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Wallyfromdilbert: This revision[17] was made per a discussion on the BLP noticeboard.[18] You changed the section header again just over a day later, from "Disputed score performances" to "Disqualified records".[19] Some people and organizations have disqualified three of Mitchell's records. Some have disqualified two. And a few hangers-on haven't disqualified any. Twin Galaxies and Guinness, the primary organizations under discussion in the section, have disqualified all of Mitchell's records. Would you say all of Mitchell's records are really the subject of the section, or does it only mention them in passing as they relate to his three disputed score performances? I obviously have a suspicion about the motives behind your revision, but as usual, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no interest in engaging with your tendentious editing or bad faith assumptions. Submit an edit request and provide sources to support your claims. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Three hours after semi-protection had expired and I'd finally been able to correct your repeated, unsourced BLP violation,[20] you made this additional revision to the opening sentence of the article.[21] That revision looks to me like an effort to continue promoting your false claims that Billy Mitchell is no longer competing. I didn't object at the time, mainly because I don't think it will work, but it's yet another apparent violation of WP:NEUTRAL on your part. As usual, if there's some other believable explanation for your revision, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stop badgering editors. If you want a change, make an WP:EDITREQUEST. This editor has made it clear they don’t wish to engage with you further, and when there is no active dispute ongoing, they are not required to. Unless you wish to open up an edit request for a specific change, this is nothing more than harassment and needs to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm citing apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations and giving one of the apparent violators the opportunity to respond. It's true that he isn't required to engage with me further, but your claim that this is nothing more than harassment is absurd. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Wallyfromdilbert: You completely deleted Mitchell's 1,047,500-point Donkey Kong public livestream from the article, along with the source,[22] which looks to me like yet another way to promote your false claims that Mitchell is no longer competing. You left the claim that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which is obviously untrue. If that isn't a violation of WP:NEUTRAL, what's the explanation? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations in "Personal life" section

This is the content Wallyfromdilbert removed from the "Personal life" section on July 26 (with paragraph breaks removed): [As media coverage of the perfect game transcended the retrogaming community and made Mitchell a semi-celebrity, he continued operating the family business and raising three children. An interview with Mitchell's stepdaughter appears in the DVD bonus footage of The King of Kong, while his younger daughter and son are prominently featured in Chasing Ghosts. Mitchell's son, William "Billy" Mitchell III, was a first-team all-Florida football player at American Heritage-Delray. Primarily a kicker and punter, Mitchell was named to Florida HS Football's all-finals team after a 27-yard field goal and a 70-yard punt in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. He was ranked as a top-100 prospect among kickers in the high school class of 2017. The elder Mitchell is also the brother of Karen Harrington, a South Florida politician who won heavily contested Republican primaries in 2010 and 2012 to challenge Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her seat in the United States House of Representatives.]

This is Wallyfromdilbert's explanation for removing that content: [In my opinion, the additional content by the IP editor ... is not relevant to a biography on Billy Mitchell. If his family members have done notable things, then their achievements would be appropriate for their own Wikipedia articles. If the information related to Mitchell in some way other than him merely being a family member, then it may possibly be relevant to his biography. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or trivia (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The reason given by the IP editor ("because most of the people who take the time to read a Wikipedia article about Billy Mitchell will enjoy them") is not an adequate reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, which is based on encyclopedic value as related to the article subject.]

This is the content Wallyfromdilbert added to the "Personal life" section in mid August: [Mitchell has a long-standing rivalry with his Roy Shildt, also known as "Mr. Awesome". According King of Kong, animosity first developed between the men after Mitchell caused Shildt's high score on Missile Command to be called into question. Shildt, in turn, has disputed Mitchell's credibility and accused him of cheating. In an incident during the 2010 "International Video Game Hall of Fame" Shildt was ejected from the premises after haranguing Mitchell in public. Mitchell has stated that he avoids interaction with Shildt.]

I'm planning to follow up on this. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions for Sergecross73 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Sergecross73: Your suggestion that you've been merely a "mediator" here is absurd. In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? Also, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I protected a page due to edit warring, and then protected it again when an editor attempted to make an edit again without consensus after page protection expired. That’s very basic policy following. Then I spent a ton of time responding to your every whim because others had tired of talking circles with you. That breaks zero policies. I’ll be clear - as I’ve told you before when you explicitly asked me for my opinions, I think you’ve done a very poor job of explaining why your content is important/noteworthy to the subject. But that’s not why your content isn’t in the article. It’s not in the article because not only do you not have a consensus for inclusion, but you haven’t even attempted to make any effort to work towards a consensus in weeks. You seem to do everything but create discussions that would work towards creating a consensus. Honestly, I kind of hope someone pops up and commands you to never start up a discussion to create a consensus, because you seem to go out of your way to do the exact opposite of what you’re told. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You seem to go out of your way to create distractions from my questions about content and policy by relentlessly smearing me with false accusations and other personal attacks. If someone "pops up" and commands you to ignore my questions, will you finally start answering them? In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? It's ridiculous to claim you've responded to my "every whim" when you're still refusing to answer the straightforward yes-or-no question that should be at the center of this discussion. It's also ridiculous to claim you intervened because others had tired of "talking circles" with me. Who would you say those "others" were? Your ongoing accusations that I've engaged in edit warring are also false. My initial contributions relative to Mitchell's personal life were prompted by discussion on this talk page, and I sought further discussion here at every step along the way. I undid exactly one edit without attempting to improve the content, and that was only to call attention to the fact that the editors who were repeatedly obliterating my contributions refused to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. You suggest I've done a very poor job of explaining why the content is important or noteworthy. I've pointed out that the content is objectively true, directly relevant, and reliably sourced. What would you say is the purpose of an encyclopedia if not to give its readers relevant, accurate information about the subject? I'd say you've done a very poor job of explaining what additional standards you think the content would need to meet in order to qualify as noteworthy. As I'd asked repeatedly in the discussions you've now archived above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell has three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? Finally, regarding your assertion that I haven't "attempted to make any effort" to work toward a consensus in weeks, how do you claim to know what I've attempted to do? 208.53.226.115 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It’s been almost a month and a half since you rescinded your most recent proposal. It’s been almost a month since I locked the page from editing after you implemented your rescinded proposal without a consensus. You have made no further proposals, largely opting to bicker with me and to take extreme offense at anyone who disagrees with you. That is what I am talking about. Please make a new discussion/proposal and garner a consensus for it, or move on. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Your accusation that I take extreme offense at anyone who disagrees with me is yet another installment in your long series of lies and personal smears. How do you claim to know what offends me? Then when I point out your lies, you throw in the false accusation that I'm bickering. As I've indicated in the discussions you've now archived above, if you'd like me to stop responding to your false accusations, you're more than welcome to stop making them. As I've also indicated above, nearly two full days passed after I said I'd appreciate any feedback on the modified content and before I withdrew the compromise offer. Suddenly you were quiet as a mouse, and you finally unprotected the page. How would you say I was supposed to know you objected to the modified content? In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? As I'd asked repeatedly in the discussions you've now archived above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell has three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? It doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the "mediator" of any discussion in which I'm a participant, especially when you're still refusing to answer these straightforward questions. As I've already asked above, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? As I'd pointed out to you a month ago, "You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a 'former' competitive gamer without consensus." Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed immediately "without waiting for discussion". As I've asked you at least four other times in the last month, why would you say this policy doesn't apply to Wallyfromdilbert's repeated reinsertions of the bogus claim that Billy Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? WP:BLP further states, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Instead you insist that I "provide a WP:DIF of the exact edit you feel violated our BLP policy". What difference does the WP:DIF make? The policy says to remove the content "immediately" and "without waiting for discussion". Once again, why would you say that policy doesn't apply in this case? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I asked you multiple times to identify what exact change violated BLP, and what content you wanted changed to what, and you never once even identified it. Even now, I can only tell what you’re referring to because you made the edit - you wanted the word “former” removed? Erroneous or not, it was not a BLP violation for it to say “former”. (It did not say he was “driven”, it merely stated he was inactive. It could be wrong, but it wasn’t a BLP violation.) This could have been resolved weeks ago if you, you know, had started a discussion to better articulate your concerns, as you were instructed. But you failed to follow protocol or understand policy, and dragged it on and on. Completely your fault.

Now that the page protection has expired (neither time did I “remove it” - it expires after a certain amount of time that I set - this is undeniably how the system works whether you understand it or not) please do not break any more policies. This includes no edit warring (reverting multiple times) and no making challenged edits without consensus. And no, there is no grounds for removing admin who are correctly enforcing policy. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not asking whether there are grounds for removing administrators who are correctly enforcing policy. I'm asking whether Wikipedia has any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses. Does it? You continue to smear me with insinuations that I've engaged in edit warring by "reverting multiple times". As I've already pointed out above, my initial contributions relative to Mitchell's personal life were prompted by discussion on this talk page, and I sought further discussion here at every step along the way. I undid exactly one (1) edit without attempting to improve the content, and that was only to call attention to the fact that the editors who were repeatedly obliterating my contributions refused to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Your claim that page protection "undeniably" expires after a certain amount of time that you set is also untrue. As I've already said above, you originally protected the page from July 26 to August 2, and I was still unable to edit it late in the day on August 3. You ask whether I wanted the word former removed. In the interest of showing you how to answer a question, yes I did, and your claim that I "never once" identified it as the content that violated WP:BLP is absurd. I'd written the following to Wallyfromdilbert on August 16: [Mitchell took first place at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane literally five days ago. Why do you insist on repeatedly reinserting the blatantly, objectively false claim that he's a "former" competitive gamer into the article?] Three hours later Wallyfromdilbert had written: [Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content on biographies of living people.] I'd replied: [Okay, so where's your reliable source that says Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer?] Wallyfromdilbert never responded. That same evening I'd written to you: [You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer without consensus.] Several days later you'd written to me: [You haven’t provided an explanation of the exact thing you want changed ...] I'd responded by quoting my previous statement: [As I'd pointed out over a week ago, "You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a 'former' competitive gamer without consensus."] And I'd just quoted the same statement to you again in my last comment above, the very comment to which you're replying as you claim I've "never once" identified the content. You say the situation was completely my fault, but if you really couldn't tell I was referring to the claim that Mitchell was a "former" competitive gamer, even after I'd directly quoted it no less than five times, it seems to me that would be at least ninety percent your own fault. Now you're claiming, "It could be wrong, but it wasn’t a BLP violation." That's some next-level absurdity. Repeatedly reinserting unsourced, objectively false content about a living person, even after being directly told that it's false, is a blatant BLP violation, and so was Wallyfromdilbert's refusal to remove it, and so was your demand that I "provide a WP:DIF of the exact edit" in order to prevent you from closing the discussion. You accuse me of failing to "follow protocol or understand policy", but what protocol and policy do you mean? Does Wikipedia policy require me to submit to every obnoxious demand and ultimatum you decree? I'm predictably weary of asking you to clarify your claims about the actual substance of my own contributions, but it really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the "mediator" of any discussion in which I'm a participant. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, nothing that has happened here would cause an admin to lose their rights. Yes, you need to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR. Everything else is just talking the same circles you’ve been repeating for weeks without getting anywhere. Get a consensus for your proposal, or it doesn’t go in the article. It’s that simple. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Apparently you're determined to continue smearing me with insinuations that I'm "talking circles" and committing multiple policy violations. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Sergecross73: Is the article currently restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed access? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Sergecross73: Apparently it was unprotected, but I kept getting a last-second error message when I tried to submit the correction of an inaccurate quotation. Now it's protected again. Do you have any idea what's going on? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Two weeks ago, the page protection expired, and in that time, there were a number of instances of vandalism and unconstructive edits, so yesterday the page protection was restored. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Do you mean to suggest it's only a coincidence that you restored page protection after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification? Do you mean to suggest my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM? Do you mean to suggest good-faith edits you deem "unconstructive" are grounds for page protection? I saw that page protection had been restored yesterday. Do you have any idea why the page was unprotected this afternoon, or why protection was restored again after I first asked you about it at 20:24 above? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Look at the page history to see examples of vandalism that was removed from the article by Wally these these last two weeks, when the protection was added, that it was not restored at any point yesterday, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm asking three yes-or-no questions here. You're more than welcome to clarify or elaborate on the answers, but I'd obviously appreciate it if you'd begin each response with a yes or a no. (1) On Friday you restored page protection[23] after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification.[24] Do you mean to say my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM? (2) You tell me[25] to look at the page history[26] to see that the protection was not restored at any point on Saturday. Do you mean to say the article was protected continuously, with no breaks, throughout the day on September 28? (3) As I'd pointed out on Saturday, a key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated (see the top of the third page in this tweet[27]). As I'd asked you a few hours later,[28], nearly five days ago, if Twin Galaxies is defending itself against defamation allegations by explicitly citing the fact that it never claimed Mitchell cheated, isn't the article's claim that he cheated a violation of WP:BLP? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, yes, and no. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for answering. This is another yes-or-no question. If you're not saying my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM, do you mean to say a good-faith edit you deem "unconstructive" is grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Sergecross73: It looks like you've made several contributions to Wikipedia today. Are you abandoning this discussion? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, it’s more that the way you framed the question can’t really be answered with just a yes or no answer. (And 12 hours is generally not long enough to assume someone has “abandoned” a conversation generally, though I do think you should focus on formulating WP:EDITREQUESTS than asking me questions over and over again. You never seem to like or accept what I have to say anyways, so why not ask someone else? That’s what edit requests do. Please do that.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Do you mean to say you're abandoning this discussion? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Sergecross73: I'm retracting my last question. The end of your preceding comment seems to indicate you're abandoning the discussion, but the beginning of the comment directly says you're not. On September 27, you restored page protection[29] after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification.[30] If you're not saying my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM, do you mean to say a good-faith edit you deem unconstructive is grounds for page protection? To answer your question, I don't ask someone else what you mean to say because I don't think anyone else can tell me. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The page is protected because there’s a history of edits by IPs that do not conform to policy. I’m saying that, rather arguing with me about that, which will get you nowhere, you should focus your efforts on formulating constructive WP:EDITREQUESTs, which has the potential to change the article, which is, I assume, the whole reason you’re here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Nearly every Wikipedia article that touches on a public controversy presumably has a history of revisions by IP editors that don't conform to policy, and I don't see how that alone could be grounds for page protection, but you seem to be going to great lengths to change the subject and avoid answering very simple yes-or-no questions. Would you say a good-faith edit you deem unconstructive is grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don’t answer your yes or no questions because they’re weirdly worded and leading, like an ill-conceived effort to get me to say something other than what I mean. Which is why I just respond with what I mean directly instead. Here’s the situation. Does Wikipedia policy allow for content to be added without sources? No. (WP:V) Did you do this? Yes. As such, it was one of a number of non-policy-following-edits that lead to the pages protection. Judging by the vandalism prior to your edit, and that there seems to be ongoing developments with the subject, protection would have happened whether you made your unsourced edit or not. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, I didn't add unsourced content. The cited source clearly indicates that Mitchell achieved the perfect score without manipulating the game's hardware to freeze play: ["He planned to grab a bite the next morning, but he again arrived too early to get food, so he started playing Pac-Man. He kept playing for just under six hours... With a crowd of fans and media looking on, Mitchell navigated his way through 256 boards, periodically employing the hiding spots to pause and do interviews."] Your responses directly imply that a good-faith edit you deemed unconstructive was grounds for page protection, which means the answer to my question is yes. Your suggestion that the question was "weirdly worded and leading" is absurd. Do you also mean to say "ongoing developments with the subject" are grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is not what I said or implied. If you’re not going to read what I say, and just jump to whatever conclusions you want to regardless of what I say, then I’m not going to bother to respond. I am under no obligation to explain or gain your approval in page protection. Your edit was reverted due to being an unsourced addition. If this was incorrect, free to try again through the WP:EDITREQUEST system. But even if it was perfectly sourced, (I’m not sure it is, that excerpt doesn’t really verify your addition), it was not the sole reason for the protection, so it will still remain in place. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You indicated that my attempted clarification wasn't a violation of WP:VANDALISM. You indicated that you deemed my attempted clarification to be unsourced. You indicated that my attempted clarification was one of the revisions that led to the page's protection. Your responses directly imply that a good-faith edit you deemed unconstructive was grounds for page protection. Would you say "ongoing developments with the subject" are grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, the point of that statement was that vandalism is more likely when a subject is in the news and has recent developments going on. Just basic common sense type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for answering. Are you aware that, per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, semi-protection shouldn't be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that hasn't yet occurred? The policy says "brief periods" of protection are allowed when "blatant" vandalism "is occurring" at a "frequency" that "requires" it. It says the duration of the protection should be set "as short as possible". As far as I can see, it doesn't say anything about semi-protection when two inexperienced IP editors have simply added unsourced content they believe to be true, much less when there's an honest disagreement about whether the content is supported by the source. Regarding the previous instances in which you protected the article on July 26[31] and August 16,[32] are you aware that, per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved? The policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. You appear to have repeatedly violated the policy, but as usual, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, I’m very aware of the policy. But I didn’t preemptively protect it. As I’ve told you many times, I protected it due to vandalism that had already occurred. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You said the point of your statement was that "vandalism is more likely when a subject is in the news and has recent developments going on". That's obviously true, but if you didn't preemptively protect the page, why would you say it's relevant? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You’re confusing and combining separate ideas here. I assume you keep badgering me on this because you’re trying to weasel your way into some sort of rationale to get the page unprotected. My point is that, even if you were successful in this (you’re not making progress by the way), it’ll likely be re-protected anyways do to random IPs unrelated to you adding blatant vandalism. To be clear, that’s a rationale why you should stop wasting your time with this misguided effort, not the reason why it is currently protected. Two separate ideas. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE: "Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing." – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposals for expanding the "Personal life" section

I am creating this on behalf on another editor. Any additions related to expanding the “Personal life” section of the article should be proposed and discussed here, and only added if there is WP:CONSENSUS to do so. I have no stance in the matter, I’m merely here to make sure consensus, WP:V, and WP:BLP is followed. Any off-topic comments unrelated to proposals or consensus building will be deleted or hatted/collapsed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I can’t help but notice that this section has gone unused for almost a month. Lots of arguing, but zero actual proposals. This can’t go on. Please make short, concise recommendations for concrete changes with sources to back it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Electronic Gaming Monthly profile

https://egmnow.com/the-split-screen-man/ ... I'm planning to post several comments related to this article as time allows. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The EGM profile identifies Mitchell's son as Billy Mitchell Jr., which poses a problem. According to intelius.com, Mitchell's 78-year-old father is also named William James Mitchell, and the article at the following link identifies him as William Mitchell Sr. ... https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-king-of-kong-star-billy-mitchell-20180412-story.html ... That seems to mean that this Wikipedia article correctly identifies its subject as William James Mitchell Jr. and that his son is technically William James Mitchell III. I know these aren't reliable sources, but Mitchell's son identifies himself as WilliamJames in his Twitter handle and Billy Mitchell Jr. on Instagram. So if the article's subject is Billy Mitchell Jr., but his son publicly goes by Billy Mitchell Jr. himself, I'm not sure how Wikipedia should resolve that. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The journalist who wrote the EGM profile tells me in an email, "I was aware of the Jr./III situation but I asked the son how he'd want to be credited and he said everyone treats them as Jr./Sr., so that's what I stuck with." My recommendation for Wikipedia would be to identify the subject's son as Billy III and—when it's necessary to distinguish between them—to identify the subject himself as Billy Jr. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On Wikipedia, we use WP:COMMONNAME to decide what names to use, which generally boils down to what name is most commonly used in reliable sources. Nothing mentioned above would constitute a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. I’m sure you’ve got countless reasons as to why I’m wrong or evil or something for saying this, so I won’t be following up on this, I’m just letting you know that when your WP:EDITREQUESTs are inevitably rejected, this would probably be why. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: As I've pointed out above, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel identifies the subject's 78-year-old father as William Mitchell Sr.,[33] which means this Wikipedia article correctly identifies the subject as William Mitchell Jr. Do you mean to say the Sun-Sentinel isn't a reliable source? What alternative approach would you suggest for distinguishing between Billy Mitchell III and his father? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From the EGM profile:[34] "Billy Mitchell [III] described his father as endlessly supportive of his dream to play football, recounting the time and money he poured into making it happen. Mitchell [Jr] enrolled his son in the school with the best football program in the area and drove him back and forth each day, despite the fact that it was nearly 50 miles from their house." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Billy Jr's son, Billy Mitchell III, was a first-team all-Florida football player at American Heritage-Delray. Primarily a kicker and punter, Mitchell was named to Florida HS Football's all-finals team after a 27-yard field goal and a 70-yard punt in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. He was ranked as a top-100 prospect among kickers in the high school class of 2017. In November of 2015, the NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach ran a feature story on the parallels between Billy III's football career and Billy Jr's competitive gaming career. WPTV News reported that Billy Jr had turned down an invitation to a gaming convention in Australia because he refused to miss one of Billy III's football games. Multiple sources indicate that Billy III's football career is directly relevant to Billy Jr's biography and personal life. I've been citing reliable sources for all of this information since July, and no one has provided a clear, policy-based reason for removing it from the article. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Extended content

@Wallyfromdilbert: You continue to take the time to add WP:SPA tags when I post comments like the one above, but you make no effort to provide a clear, policy-based reason for your removal of the information under discussion. As time allows, I'm planning to get back to the appropriate section[35] and continue presenting the evidence that your revisions demonstrate an extensive pattern of WP:NEUTRAL violations. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. No one is required to act just because you WP:DONTGETIT regarding appropriate Wikipedia content. If you have a problem with my behavior, you can take it to WP:ANI, although you should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first. Please note that casting WP:ASPERSIONS and engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is a good way to get blocked. Please also note that you have already been warned by an administrator to not harass other editors. I would suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:EDITREQUEST. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

From the EGM profile:[36] "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware. It declined to make a determination on the 1.062 million score from Boomers, citing a lack of direct evidence... In the year that followed ... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son [Billy III], eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues... Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores now. But he hadn’t outlined a clear defense to prove he’d achieved them at the time of the original submissions." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Extended content

@Wallyfromdilbert: You completely deleted Mitchell's 1,047,500-point Donkey Kong public livestream from the article, along with the source,[37] which looks to me like yet another way to promote your false claims that Mitchell is no longer competing. You left the claim that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which, per multiple sources, is obviously untrue. If that isn't a violation of WP:NEUTRAL, what's the explanation? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In case Wallyfromdilbert or anyone else decides to follow up on this, here's a link to the public livestream of Billy Jr scoring 1.050 million on Donkey Kong on November 24, 2018 ... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/340779651 ... 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. You can make an WP:EDITREQUEST and put your specific suggested change along with supporting refs. Please note that edit requests that are not supported with independent reliable sources will likely be denied. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC) @Wallyfromdilbert: Do you mean to say you don't regard Electronic Gaming Monthly and EGM Media as reliable sources? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From the EGM profile:[38] "In July [2019], [Billy Jr] returned to Funspot [in New Hampshire] to recreate his perfect Pac-Man score 20 years later, almost to the day." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@El C: It looks like you removed Mitchell's 20th-anniversary perfect score on Pac-Man from the article (here [39]), along with the original source from Twitch. I'd say that information should be included, but the article is under semi-protection, so I'm letting you know in case you'd like to restore it. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd be happy to restore it as soon as a reliable source is provided for verification. El_C 04:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Are you saying you don't regard Electronic Gaming Monthly and EGM Media as reliable sources? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please click on your own diff — tell me what you see. El_C 04:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I'm not sure what diff you mean. Can you post a link to it here? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only diff you cited in relation to me: this one. El_C 05:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the link. I see the diff where you removed Mitchell's 20th-anniversary perfect score on Pac-Man from the article, along with the original source from Twitch. Were you saying above that you don't regard Electronic Gaming Monthly and EGM Media as reliable sources? 208.53.226.179 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I was saying no such sources were cited in that diff. El_C 05:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Oh, right. I'd cited EGM above in this thread. Sorry for the confusion. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In case El_C or anyone else decides to follow up on this and this, here's an updated link to the livestream of Billy Jr's 20th-anniversary perfect score of 3,333,360 points on Pac-Man, performed with a live-in-person audience and about 600 online viewers on July 5, 2019, at the same arcade and on the same machine as his original July 1999 perfect score ... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/449618240 ... 208.53.236.34 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From the EGM profile:[40] "[In August of 2019], [Billy Jr] traveled to Australia to compete in a Kong-Off tournament and took the top spot for the first time in the history of the event." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’ll keep this thread open, as listing out potential content to be added is a constructive activity. As soon as it goes off-topic or into hounding editors, it’s going to get hatted or closed though. Please do edit requests rather than pinging editors who appear unwilling to make edits in your stead. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

There are multiple ending quotations inside punctuation marks. This is incorrect in proper American English. Examples:

 ". . . all time".

The above should be written as ". . . all time." Later on, for example:

 "a master of information control",

This should be written as "a master of information control,"

There are multiple instances in this article of improper punctuation surrounding ending quotation marks that should be fixed. Surrealistichamster (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia uses the logical quotation format regardless of what variety of English is used in an article. See MOS:LQUOTE for the policy and WP:LQUOTE for additional explanation. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information

He is not the first person to obtain the perfect score on pac-man. PurpleMenacee (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources. If you think a change should be made to the article, please see WP:EDITREQUEST and cite appropriate sources in your request. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page moving forward

It has come to my attention that these long, rambling, often-off-topic discussions have been going on since July. That’s 3 months. And there has been almost zero constructive, positive change coming from it. The only example I can think of is solely the work of the BLP Noticeboard, not here.

So here’s the thing. No more off-topic discussions, or they will be hatted or closed/archived. If you’ve got questions for me, bring them to my talk page. (Click on the “msg me” part in my signature to find it.) I largely wont be fielding questions here. No badgering editors either. If there is no active and specific point being disputed, they need not answer.

If one wishes to make changes that page protection keeps them from making, then they are to make an WP:EDITREQUEST which explicitly notes what content should be changed, and what source supports it. If you have willing editors who can make the edits for you, pinging or contacting them is fine. Otherwise, edit requests. (Your other alternative being waiting for the protection to end so that you may do it yourself.)

Hopefully this approach will finally bring positive change to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I’m Serge, an Admin here. It appears Billy Mitchell brings out a lot of strong feelings from people, both very pro or against. However, it has repeatedly lead to the ignoring of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and protocols. As such, the page will be locked from editing for a while. If you have any requests for changes, leave them on the talk page, and they’ll be reviewed by one of the experienced editors who watch over the page. I have no stance on him, I’m merely enforcing the rules. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, please start new discussions rather than dragging out old discussions from the WP:ARCHIVEs. They were archived because they were long and going nowhere. That is not constructive, as no one new is going to bother reading through pages and pages of arguing. You’re not going to get any constructive discussion that will lead to any WP:CONSENSUS for change that way - please start new, concise points of discussion. And like before, off-topic or unconstructive comments will be removed, and even talk pages may be protected if too many in appropriate comments are made. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You've repeatedly archived the discussion of this article's apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations before I've even finished making my points. How do you claim to know the discussion was going nowhere? How do you claim to know no one new is going to bother reading it? How do you claim to know it won't lead to any consensus for change? Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (WP:TPG) explicitly forbid the unjustified removal of other people's comments, and they explicitly authorize me to unarchive a discussion that's been archived prematurely. You claim you're not promoting your own stance but "merely enforcing the rules". Exactly what "rules" would you say you're "enforcing"? 216.249.255.28 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You took these issues to BLPN and no one agreed with you. No one one this talk page has agreed with you. Your battleground mentality and unjustified accusations are disruptive. Please now WP:DROPTHESTICK before you are taken to WP:ANI for being WP:NOTHERE or this talk page is simply blocked to prevent further disruption from you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (WP:TPG) explicitly forbid the unjustified removal of other people's comments, and they explicitly authorize me to unarchive a discussion that's been archived prematurely. I learned this during the discussion on the BLP noticeboard, and your claim that no one there agreed is obviously untrue. 216.249.255.28 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Use some common sense. You spent half a year trying the same thing over and over again, with little success. Why in the world would you think that continuing down the same path would go any differently by starting it back up today? I’m telling you from 12 years experience on Wikipedia - editors rarely decide to read through tons of lengthy discussions they’re not already involved in, let alone jump in to participate. Large walls of text scare participants away. They want a brief overview of the situation. I don’t know why you’d even doubt that, you’ve witnessed it first hand repeatedly here and at WP:BLPN over the last half year. I’m not arguing with you on this. Make new, short, distinct constructive requests for changes. Anything else will be hatted, archived, or deleted based on how unconstructive it is. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Your claim that I've merely tried the same thing over and over again is untrue, and your claim that you're not arguing with me is ridiculous. You say you're not promoting your own stance but "merely enforcing the rules". Exactly what "rules" would you say you're "enforcing"? 216.249.255.28 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

There needs to be expansion on the fact that Billy may have cheated using an emulator as using an emulator allows you to create save states and reload if the player does something wrong (for example; loses a life) Secondly Billy has lost his Guinness records too, this is not mentioned in the introductory paragraph Lastly there should be a "controversies" subsection as unlike Todd Howard (another prominent cheater in retro games records) Billy has threatened to sue anyone who has called him out on his cheating, filled illegal DMCA takedown strikes against Dwane, who created two documentaries about him and how his cheating has affected the lives of legitimate players even though the footage of Billy fits the definition of fair use. Billy also, to this day denies using an emulator and claims that he is the victim of a grand conspiracy where the video tapes of him playing Donkey Kong have been edited. All of this together warrants a separate "controversies" subsection.

I would do it myself if I could but this page is fully locked, unlike Todd Howard's page. If there is a history of page vandalism make it a semi protected page. David David Davidson (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to note a few things for you:

• The lead and main body of the article both already address the cheating allegations and the loss of his Guinness records.
• Controversy sections should be avoided per WP:CSECTION. Relevant material is already addressed in the main biography section of the article, including an entire subsection titled "Disqualified records". Additional material that is properly cited to reliable sources should go into the main body, rather than a "controversy" section.
• The article is already semi-protected. If you are unable to edit, then it is probably because you have not made enough edits on Wikipedia.

Note also that WP:BLPs have additional requirements for sourcing and neutrality. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think if you give the article a closer read, you’ll see that much of that is already covered, and per WP:CSECTION, we generally try to stay away from dedicated controversy sections. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

An Edit, A Point, A Request, A Debate

An edit must be made, to reflect the factual evidence of Billy Mitchell's claim to the "first" Pac-man perfect score. I'm going to be quite direct about this, for the sake of both your time and mine. There is error in the statement that Billy Mitchell is the first single person to achieve a "perfect score" on Pac-Man. Substantial amounts of evidence have been unearthed that this is false. There is, in fact, significant amounts of proof for more than one person that have achieved perfect scores. But first, a history lesson. Originally, the Pac-man "max score" was believed to be a 3,333,180, acheived on a certain dip-switch setting, specifically known as "3+1". If this can be a considered a "perfect score" with the understanding that it was what was known as perfect at the known time, then figures like Tim Balderamos, Bill Bastable, and Chris Ayra are in much better factual standing for a "perfect score". But, we can take into consideration the fact that this was not technically "perfect", as a new setting (Dipswitch setting 5+1) was discovered to allow access to even higher point totals, with the maximum being 3,333,360. This belief of a "perfect score" has been held up to this day. Now, this fact invalidates the claims of the three aforementioned "perfect score" contenders, right? Wrong. Tim Balderamos, Chris Ayra, and Bill Bastable all set proven 3,333,360pt records before Billy Mitchell's 3,333,360. If you want to do some fact-checking on this, sites such as Twin Galaxies have a extensive, near exhaustive supply of comments and thoughts from some of the greatest minds in the Pac-Man community, along with proofs, claims, and extensive research into this topic. A few can be found here:

http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/forums/index.php?topic=4449.0 http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/forums/index.php?topic=4877.180 https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/177788-Debunking-the-claims-that-Billy-Mitchell-was-not-the-first-to-get-the-perfect-Pac-Man

I am not an avid fact-checker, and i don't typically do this type of thing. As a teacher of mine said, "Bias is the lens through which humankind views the world.". This topic could strech endlessly, and the most basic elements of this situation have been outlined here. There are hundreds of sides to this story, and I encourage you, and others that are interested in this topic, to please collectively research and make a decision on this article. This is my input. Do not take any of it out of context, and do not hesitate to delve into this topic. Feel free to contact me: User talk:K3fko

Thanks, Alex . A.K.A. K3fko, Tokuto, PlzLeave, or KaosuToKōhī.

Thank you. However, on Wikipedia, we are bound by what reliable sources say on that matter - ones that come from professional writers and journalists from established publications. Things like forum posts don’t align with that. What you seem to be suggesting would violate our rules on WP:OR and WP:USERG. Feel free to submit WP:EDITREQUESTs of specific changes you’d like done in regards to what reliable sources directly state though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 17 February 2020

Billy Mitchell did not achieve 'the first perfect score of 3,333,360 points on the original Pac-Man' as claimed in the second paragraph. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbCQKvlMsbY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.207.176.129 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Youtube is not a WP:RS. Please provide a reliable source and the verbatim text of the sentence to be removed/redacted.  Spintendo  15:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests

With the article being protected for the long term, I’m making a section exclusively for WP:EDITREQUESTs. Please present any you have below. Anything that is not an edit request will be reverted on sight without comment. Start new sections on this talk page, or my talk page, if you wish to discuss anything else. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell has been proven to have fake scores and they need changing. Wikipedia is meant to be reliable, not a place to praise Billy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGJCPRIMES (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. You are welcome to provide content corrections and reliable sources that verify the changes, and they can be implemented on your behalf. Please keep in mind that “reliable source” on Wikipedia means something from professional writers/journalists/publications. If you present something from message boards, social media, or YouTube, it’ll likely be denied. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't something that hits mainstream news and the experts on this topic mainly present through youtube and message boards as it is a niche community. That being said I found this blog that goes in depth about the controversies of his records: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2018/05/gaslighting-historical-event-billy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.177.103 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If it’s not the type of thing that is covered by reliable sources like mainstream outlets, then it’s not the type of thing Wikipedia is supposed to be covering either then. That blog would not be considered a usable source either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If YouTube is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards, then why is citation 38 regarding Mitchell being the first player to achieve a perfect score on Pac-Man a YouTube video? Talk about hypocritical. How are the videos Apollo Legend has been putting out recently that compile the evidence against Billy Mitchell any less valid than a clickbait feel good story from another channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.101.221 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re not quite looking at this correctly. YouTube itself isn’t a source. It’s a medium for sharing sources. So it’s the source within that needs to be examined. So, for example, IGN is considered a reliable source. So, if IGN’s verified account uploads a YouTube video, it’s usable. So that’s fine. But a large portion of YouTube’s videos are “CrazyJared64” creating videos out of his basement. WP:USERG and WP:SPS stuff is not usable. So, what you need to do is look at the source that offers the YouTube video. Are they a professional publication? Do they have an editorial policy? Editorial staff with editorial process and policy? If yes, it could be considered reliable. Feel free to take a closer look at source #38. If you still feel it’s not reliable, you can make an WP:EDITREQUEST to alter or remove the content. But just know that pointing out unreliable just gets them removed, it won’t justify adding further unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be niche, it's supposed to be factual. Even if you were going off things that are mainstream, I'd consider the actual Twin Galaxies website and this dispute thread that ended in Billy Mitchell being banned from TG to be a usable source. Also, Bill Bastable was the first to get a perfect Pac-Man, not Billy. Three of Billy's scores were proven to be fake also, not just two. https://twitter.com/Apollo_Legend_/status/1176551890017869826/photo/1 https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/176004-Dispute-Jeremy-Young-Arcade-Donkey-Kong-Points-Hammer-Allowed-Player-Billy-L-Mitchell-Score-1-062-800/page326 Proof here

Wikipedia covers what reliables sources report. Forums and personal social media violate WP:USERG. Your views are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The forum that I posted is the official Twin Galaxies dispute thread and is therefore the exact source to prove that three of Billy's scores are fake. An official statement from Twin Galaxies should be enough, correct? That's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGJCPRIMES (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Their published books or professional articles would be citable. Not their message board though. Same applies to sources in general - IGN is usable, their forums are not, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell isn’t the first perfect score

The first perfect score was by Bill Bastable on September 6th 1982, also recently Billy has had all records stripped from him for cheating. -Kayden Kayden Pallas (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Please submit an WP:EDITREQUEST, or at least the content to be added/changed/removed, including the reliable sources that verify the info. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Bill Bastable is one of the best Pac-Man players in gaming history, but his score on September 6, 1982, was 3,332,820. He hadn't discovered the nine regenerating dots on the right side of the final screen, so his score was 540 points short of 3,333,360. Bastable later found out about the regenerating dots and obtained the maximum score on September 2, 1988, but he admits that he manipulated the game's hardware (specifically dip switch 8) to freeze play at least three times, which enabled him to take breaks with no risks and renders the score illegitimate.

As reliably sourced to the 2006 Oxford American story cited in this Wikipedia article, Billy Mitchell was the first person to achieve a publicly witnessed and verified perfect score on Pac-Man without manipulating the game's hardware, and even Twin Galaxies itself has never publicly questioned that fact. The various claims to the contrary have been repeatedly debunked, resurrected, and debunked again for decades. 208.53.224.126 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Update: Guinness world records reinstated 5 Billy Mitchell World Records

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2020/6/a-statement-from-guinness-world-records-billy-mitchell-621053

The notices reads: "In the light of compelling new evidence received by Guinness World Records, the Records Management Team has unanimously decided to reverse decisions made in April 2018 in regards to videogame high scores achieved by Billy Mitchell between 1982 and 2010.

As of 10 June 2020, the following historical records for the arcade platform have been reinstated:

3 July 1999 - First Perfect Score on PAC-Man – 3,333,360 Points 7 November 1982 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 874,300 Points 4 June 2005 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,047,200 Points 14 July 2007 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,050,200 Points 31 July 2010 – Highest score on Donkey Kong – 1,062,800 Points This reinstatement also re-recognizes Mr Mitchell as the first gamer to reach the kill screen on Donkey Kong (7 November 1982) and first gamer to score 1 million points on Donkey Kong (4 June 2005).

Guinness World Records is always open to accepting new evidence for historical achievements, and to reviewing new and existing evidence for disputed titles.

In this case, a re-examination of the records in question and the emergence of key eyewitness and expert testimonials led to a reversal of earlier disqualifications and the reinstating of Mr Mitchell’s original records. The records archive has been updated accordingly to reflect this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.180.13 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Should change the title from "gamer" to cheater. 88.18.125.98 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not a constructive suggestion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Question for Wallyfromdilbert

@Wallyfromdilbert: The reliable sources I'd cited, and many others, verify that Mitchell is still competing as a gamer and that he's been running a successful hot sauce business for most of his adult life. Why did you remove those sources from the opening paragraph of his bio? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for starting a discussion, as if there was much more reverting, the page will be locked again. I assume this is the same person who was editing from IP before. If so, you should know that some of your changes were challenged, and that you shouldn’t be re-adding without a consensus. If you are not the same person/people, then look through the archives to get some context on what was challenged and why. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: With the article under protection, I pinged you on this talk page in late September to challenge its "Cheating" section header as a BLP violation. You ignored me. I pinged you in October to challenge it again, and you said it wasn't a BLP violation. I took the challenge to the BLP noticeboard, and as a result of the discussion there, the "Cheating" section header was finally changed to "Disputed score performances". A little over a day later, Wallyfromdilbert changed the section header again, to "Disqualified records". With the article still under protection, I attempted to challenge that change as inconsistent with the official statements of Twin Galaxies. Wallyfromdilbert refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for the change, and you ordered me to "stop badgering this editor" and "create an WP:EDITREQUEST", then closed and archived the discussion. Why would you say I'm required to get a consensus for any challenged change, but Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give a reason? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I explained in my edit summary that I was making the section header more concise [41]. You not only restored your edit, you restored it again once another editor reverted you [42]. You can try to make up facts, but this site logs everything. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yes, the site logs everything, and THIS is the link to the October change for which you explicitly refused to provide any explanation whatsoever. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, what you’re describing is the WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS-building process. When a consensus is found, changes are made. When you just endlessly badger people without getting a consensus, changes aren’t implemented. Because the page is frequently protected, and you refuse to use edit requests or create an account, and your discussions are frequently badgering and circular in nature, editors tend to keep editing. Which is fine, because I can’t recall them ever ignoring a consensus in the process, because you never have a consensus in your favor. Even recently, you had two separate editors challenging your edits, Wally was not the only one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I created this section to discuss content with Wallyfromdilbert, and you've butted in and hijacked it to accuse me of "badgering" and "circular" discussions. Is it "circular" to repeat a question you haven't answered? Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hijacked? You tagged me and asked me things directly, and I responded. If you don’t want me to comment, try not addressing me directly or asking me questions directly. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I didn't ask you anything until after you butted in. Why would you say Wallyfromdilbert isn't even required to give reasons for his changes? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is an open wiki, so editors are free to discuss issues you may have with specific edits even if you are asking a specific editor to explain. As to that specific edit from Wally, that's such a small edit that it doesn't need any real explanation and it seems to be pushing to wikilawyer on these matters. --Masem (t) 03:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Which edit are you referencing? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sources are not necessary in the lead when the material is already supported in the article (see MOS:LEADCITE), and the additional wordiness you added to the lead is also not necessary, as was discussed the last time you tried to make these edits. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I believe the article previously recognized Mitchell as a "businessman". Weren't you the one who removed that? And didn't I attempt to challenge the change? Why would you say it's necessary to include Mitchell's work at the restaurant but not necessary to include his work at his hot sauce business? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You can go look up the discussion we already had. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To the IP: You can create as many disjointed conversations threads and repeat the same questions as many times as you want. How long will it take you to start accusing everyone of a grand conspiracy against you on here this time? This disruptive behavior will get you nowhere, just like when you tried it last year. I have already answered your questions during our previous discussion on this topic [43], and the only source you gave explicitly called him "a restaurateur" [44]. I will not be answering any of your repeated questions or added to any of your repeated new threads on the same topics. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Billy Mitchell has been running a successful hot sauce business for most of his adult life. Why have you insisted on repeatedly removing the fact that he's a businessman from the opening sentence of his bio? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You do know that a "restaurateur" is a type of businessman? --Masem (t) 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Yes, of course it is, but it obviously doesn't refer to running a hot sauce business, and Mitchell has barely been involved in the day-to-day operations of the restaurant for several years. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Our reliable sources only go on that he runs the restuarants and sells the hot sauce. That's a "restaurateur". It makes no sense to try to explain this any differently without any other sources to go from. --Masem (t) 04:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Donkey Kong record progression

This section is intended for discussion of the following content:

On July 24, 2010, Mitchell reclaimed the record with a score of 1,062,800 at the Boomers arcade in Dania, Florida. It was the last time he held the title. The record was broken numerous times over the next ten years by Wiebe, Chien, Wes Copeland, John McCurdy, and Robbie Lakeman. All except McCurdy held the record at least twice. As of June 15, 2020, Lakeman achieved the current world record score of 1,260,700 points while streaming live on Twitch.

References

208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no need on this page to track who else broke the record outside of Mitchell. It's already documented at Donkey Kong high score competition (which should be linked from this page, I haven't checked but will do after this.) --Masem (t) 02:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: As explained in my edit summary, I hadn't finished cleaning up the content when it was blanked, and I'm open to removing much of it, including the names of most of the past recordholders. The record progression has been included in the article by many editors over many years, though, and I'm formally challenging the blanket removal at THIS LINK, as well as your blanket assertion that the content isn't relevant. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have a dedicated article to the high score competition. We can point to that. Just because it was included in this article in the past doesn't mean it was appropriate, particularly given that the more recent events have more WEIGHT for inclusion. --Masem (t) 03:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Yes, I agree with everything you say in that comment, but I'm formally challenging the blanket removal of all of this content related to the record progression. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Masem: At the very least, I'd say the article should include both the current world record performance and the August 2010 performance by Steve Wiebe that broke Mitchell's most recent (claimed) world record. If you, Wallyfromdilbert, and I can agree on some version of that, then as far as I'm concerned, this dispute can be over. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is fair to say that Mitchell lost the record to Weibe and that others since broke it, but that's as far as it needs to be said on this page. --Masem (t) 04:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The information about other people after Weibe is really not relevant to a biography on Mitchell, especially when its being sourced to a Twitch stream, the Guinness Records website, and an article about one new record being set. I don't even think mentioning Weibe would be relevant except that their history is obviously a large part of Mitchell's public life now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

At least to me, saying that after Weibe there were others (without specifics) is enough to know that people have kept on beating Mitchell's record, Weibe didn't fluke it once and that was it. Ideally, just one article to say that would be nice, but I don't see one article (but I could replace that with two Polygon articles 2016 that hits many previous attempts and then the 2018 one that points back to the 2016 article so it's clear there's no OR making up that chain (all from same source). --Masem (t) 06:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you also think it should be mentioned, then I'm not going to push it, although I think it is still unnecessary to Mitchell's biography. I shortened it to remove the redundant phrasing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A bare-bones overview of the Donkey Kong world record progression seems obviously relevant to Billy Mitchell and obviously necessary to avoid lowering the quality of this article. Unsupported claims that it isn't relevant or necessary are essentially no more than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm fine with removing the "All except McCurdy ..." sentence, and I've offered a further compromise above, but no one here has provided any actual explanation of how removing three concise sentences of accurate information improves the article or benefits Wikipedia's readers. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’ve re-protected the page. I warned you to stop reverting and edit warring in the section above, and yet you continued to do so through these discussions, managing to get reverted by three separate editors. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'd formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content, and Masem continued to repeatedly remove that content without seeking a consensus. I thought he was the one violating Wikipedia policy. If I was violating policy, it wasn't intentional. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since your return a couple days ago, you’ve repeatedly reverted Chaheel, Wally, and Masem. In the section above, I mentioned that more reverting would lead to page protection. You responded to this comment, so you must have seen it. But the reverting continued. In the section above, you also confirmed you’re the same person who has edited by IP here in the past, who has been blocked countless times for edit warring before. The more times you’re warned and block for something, the less “chances” you get, and the faster action happens. Put it all together, and the page is locked again. You’re free to keep discussing and make WP:EDITREQUESTs, just not edit war anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: My efforts to discuss the "Donkey Kong record progression" in this section have obviously been disrupted, so I've created a new section (LINK) to respond to your accusations. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for discussing. However, you failed to stop reverting... Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I'd opened this section on the talk page and formally challenged a blanket removal of longstanding content HERE. Without a consensus to remove the content (or even a substantive discussion), all or most of it was removed again HERE, and HERE, and HERE. In the edit summary HERE, you say I've had at least three different people remove the content. Who would you say those three people were? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stop wikilaywering and listen to what long-term editors are telling or you will be blocked. This is beyond disruptive now. --Masem (t) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Yes, we agree that this is beyond disruptive. Who would you say were the "at least" three different people who removed the disputed content related to the record progression? 208.53.231.158 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Responding to administrator Sergecross73

In the talk page comment at this link, administrator Sergecross73 writes:
"Since your return a couple days ago ..."
I returned to editing this article over a week ago.
"... you’ve repeatedly reverted Chaheel, Wally, and Masem."
I reverted Masem's blanket removals of longstanding content twice because I'd formally challenged the removal of the content and he was ignoring my suggested compromises and other attempts to reach a consensus. Please provide links to show that I've "repeatedly" reverted any other user.
"In the section above, I mentioned that more reverting would lead to page protection. You responded to this comment, so you must have seen it."
I responded to that comment, so I must have seen it.
"But the reverting continued."
Please provide links to the reverting you'd say "continued" after that comment.
"In the section above, you also confirmed you’re the same person who has edited by IP here in the past, who has been blocked countless times for edit warring before."
Please provide a link to any one of the "countless" times you'd say I've been blocked.
208.53.231.158 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reverts here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: As I've pointed out repeatedly since last October, per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved. The policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. You've repeatedly violated that policy by abusing semi-protection to privilege Wallyfromdilbert and Masem and impose a de facto block against me, and you've cited a different false pretext for doing so each time. It seems like WP:AN may be my last remaining option. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The term "repeatedly" is applied to a group of editors, not to individuals. For the record, here's where you reverted my edit, but you simply reinserted it so it doesn't show up as undo/reversion. That's sneaky and duplicitous behaviour in itself - trying to avoid 3RR like that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Your comment includes four falsehoods. (1) No, I didn't manually reinsert that content. (2) The edit does show up with the "Undo" tag. (3) No, my behavior wasn't sneaky and duplicitous. (4) No, I wasn't "trying to avoid 3RR like that". I was using the edit summary to clarify that, per the cited sources, the internal dispute at Twin Galaxies only involved three score performances, a fact the article still doesn't convey well. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) You manually removed the "undid revision..." text - which is not much better, worse in fact, (2) No it doesn't - the "undo" tag only appears on article history, not user contributions, thus making it harder to judge a persons contributions in bulk (3) Yes it was, (4) Your behaviour suggests otherwise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Like usual, you are not quite understanding the situation, or self-aware. Your whole argument seems to hinge on the fact that you shouldn’t be blocked. This is false. Over the course of the many IPs you’ve used, you’ve done more than enough edit warring to be blocked. But I have not blocked you. Why? Because admin have flexibility to handle things in the way that will be most effective. I could have blocked you. But I didn’t. Why? Because you’d just switch IPs again to get around the block. That’s why, when dealing with a WP:SPA IP-hopper who edit wars, it’s recommended that page protection is used instead. That’s bulletpoint number three at WP:SEMI, which you either had conveniently ignored, or are too clueless to see it applies to your actions over the past months/year. And it’s doubly appropriate when you factor in the IP vandalism coming from people besides yourself.

Feel free to alert AN. They’ll take one look at the situation, and see that every time the page is unprotected, there is edit warring and vandalism, and every time it’s protected, it comes to a complete halt. They’re not going to chastise me for that. That’s effective page protection. If anything, you’ll probably get yourself a WP:BOOMERANG... Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't remember ever intentionally violating Wikipedia's edit warring policy, and I'd like a chance to explain the reasons if I violated it unintentionally. Have I ever violated WP:3RR? Please provide links to specific diffs that you'd say show examples. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not going to sift through a years worth of edits to see if/when you ever broke 3RR. I don’t recall if you ever broke 3RR. I didn’t accuse of breaking 3RR. Edit warring and breaking 3RR are not the same thing. I find it concerning that you don’t seem to understand this with how many times I’ve warned you and protected the page over you doing it. But regardless, I’m extremely certain you did edit war, and edit against consensus. Please stop with the wikilawyering and return to discussing your concerns about the article with the three editors who have disagreed with your edits over the last week or so. The more tangents you go off on, the harder time you’re going to have getting a consensus in your favor. It’s happened to you so many times, I can’t believe you dont see this pattern yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: In the last few months you've added SPA tags to roughly 80 of my comments here claiming I've made few or no other edits outside this topic. That isn't true. I've made significant contributions to dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles over the years. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)208.53.231.158 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Virtually every edit you’ve made within the last year or so, in these discussions, has been been related to Billy Mitchel or people/records/games related to him. And virtually every stance you take is pro-Mitchell. That’s an extremely limited scope. That matches our definition of an SPA. I recommend circling back to actually discussing the article again, as were right about at that point we’ve hit countless times before, where your arguing and bickering spirals out of control, which leads to you being unable to persuade anyone, accusations of conspiracies against you, discussions being archived, etc etc. Please don’t start up this cycle again. Sergecross73 msg me 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Would you consider reverting your challenged blanket removal of longstanding content at this link and waiting for a WP:CONSENSUS? It seems possible that you're a decent person making honest mistakes, and I'd really rather focus the WP:AN discussion on other users. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus seems strongly in favor of keeping it off. You're the only one that wants the full high score history breakdown. And I will strongly caution that you're very much heads-deep in Wikilawyering territory here, as you have been given numerous warnings on this page as well as at the past BLP/N's eg [45] about how to work with others on this, and that hasn't seemed to improve. You're focus on tiny admin actions that ultimately mean little, rather than the actual nature of the dispute, that you're asking for excessive information to be added in this that doesn't need to be there. --Masem (t) 20:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for responding. As I'd indicated in my suggested compromises, I'm not demanding a "full high score history breakdown", but you didn't wait for a single comment from an uninvolved editor, and we obviously don't agree that the actions of administrators here "ultimately mean little". 208.53.231.158 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Also, I'm not asking for information to be "added in this". I'm challenging your blanket removal of information that's been included in the article by many editors for many years. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because it was in the article for a long time (which I did look to see it was there since ~2016) doesn't mean it was always appropriate. There's clearly no prior discussion of those scores in the talk page histories, and the recent attention due to the high score removal and from this page being reported at BLPN led to review of the names of the high scorers being included and determined inappropriate to be included. That's normal editing practice. --Masem (t) 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The situation is being discussed here if anyone here wants to chime in. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was rejected and closed within minutes. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This article sucks

Billy Mitchell was not the first to get the maximum score in Pacman, he didn't get video game player of the century at the Namco, instead the other owner of Twin Galaxies created the award just to give to Billy Mitchell. Billy did try to sue for deformation, but the current owner of Twin Galaxies is suing him for fraud, he faked Donkey Kong records and is threatening to sue everyone that spreads the truth about him. The Unholy Banana (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

See section above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)